Ghost rules discussion

[ultravioletu]

The official ghost rules emerged long ago on Eidos Forum. However, EF is dead now, and even if its content was migrated to Square Enix forums, it looks like the taffers avoid the latter stubbornly. Therefore, we need a place to discuss those rules, to make them more applicable to the modern world, compatible with newest ideas and innovations from FMs.

The latest official form of the Ghost Rules is here: https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148523.

Also I would like to propose the following amendment.

The rule #6 for Supreme Ghost, originally

6. No dousing of torches and no moss arrow use is allowed: Turning off electric lights, snuffing candles, or removing any light source including Mushrooms is also Not Allowed.

was already amended to

6a. No dousing of torches. Turning off electric lights, snuffing candles, or removing any light source including Mushrooms is also Not Allowed.
6b. No use of moss arrows to deaden noise.
6c. The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes, such as to hit a switch or to complete a puzzle element.

But it must be further refined like this (changes in blue):

6a. Dousing of torches, turning off electric lights, snuffing candles, or removing any light source including Mushrooms to create darkness for concealing purposes is Not Allowed.
6b. No use of moss arrows to deaden noise.
6c. The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes, such as to hit a switch or to complete a puzzle element. This explicitly includes the usage of holy water arrows (allowing thus for an exceptional usage of Holy Water potion, otherwise forbidden by Rule #5).
6d. It is allowed to remove light sources to obtain loot (e.g. lighted candlesticks) or to complete puzzle elements, as long as the player does not use the additional darkness for concealing purposes. It is also allowed to remove light sources created by the player, for instance torches lit for completing puzzle elements.

Feel free to comment and suggest improvements. If there are no objections during the next days, the above changes become valid automatically.

[Cigam]

I can't help with Ghosting rules but I do think some of the rules could do with a refresh to remove seemingly arbritray elements. And this would be the best place to host official rules.

For example Titanium Man allows you to save if you need to take a break for more than an hour, then later pick up where you left off. So if I found that I was ready to start playing again 53m later I would wait the 7 mins just to make it an hour. But really, why should I have to do this? It has nothing to do with the challendge in any real way whether my break was less than an hour.

Anyway, "The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes..." the problem with rules like that is that unless you stipulate ALL exceptions, there is nothing to stop a player inventing a made up purpose. For example, my purpose in using the moss arrow is decoration. I like the way their green pattern contrasts with the floor. And if that coincidentally means that section of florr becomes quieter, well so be it.

You might say I am taking the mick but nothing actually breaks the rules here.

[ultravioletu]

But that would break rule 6b. One could rephrase 6c more precisely: "The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes, such as to hit a switch or to complete a puzzle element, as long as the player does not use the result to enhance Garrett's natural sneaking abilities" (or "as long as the player does not violate 6a and 6b").

Also, I personally have no issue with a whitelist of exceptions, provided that the rules are continuously kept up-to-date to match authors' creativity. As they were first drafted, there were no golden candlesticks that needed to be snuffed before taken. And barely, if any, missions where the player had to use gas, moss or holy water arrows: not to avoid/disable enemy AI, but to complete puzzles like in Morbid Curiosity or Endless Rain. So it's understandable why they written as such.

And I agree with you on Titanium Man rule, an inflexible limit of 60 minutes (why not 42?) is not in the spirit of the rule.

[EnYB0La]

klatremus is our man.

[Yandros]

Tannar and Peter Smith will no doubt want to weigh in here as well.

[Grandmauden]

I'd also like to propose an amendment that clarifies the rule against potions. Currently, the rules concerning potions state:

(Normal Ghost)

7. The use of potions, such as speed, breath, and invisibility, is allowed but frowned upon. Such use must be reported, and a ghost success so aided must be listed as "chemical success".

(Supreme Ghost)

5. Inventory and Weapons: [...] No Potions can be used at all. [...]

I've always felt that these rules were directed towards potions that specifically enhance Garrett's natural abilities or make areas easier to sneak through. But I don't think holy water vials necessarily fit in that category. They only affect Garrett's water arrows rather than Garrett himself, and it's debatable whether they even count as potions (Garrett doesn't drink them, he just dips his water arrows in them). At the very least, I think the use of holy water vials should be permissible if you need a holy water arrow to complete a puzzle element, like ultravioletu mentioned above.

On a similar note, what about potions that don't provide an enhancement or make sneaking easier, but are used as part of the story? Example: in "Finals at the Academy," the mission ends when you drink the Potion of True Dreams. While I was ghosting this mission, I was worried that this would bust my Supreme run, because the Supreme rule in its current form says that no potions are allowed whatsoever. Ultimately, I realized that it wasn't a bust because I had an objective to complete the initiation ritual - of which drinking the Potion of True Dreams is the final step - and, of course, breaking rules is okay if an objective tells you to. Without that objective, though, drinking the potion for the purpose of the storyline would've been a Supreme bust, even though this isn't the kind of scenario the rule was intended to prevent.

So, in summary, I would like to amend the Ghost rules to allow for the use of potions and holy water vials to complete puzzle or story elements, similar to the already-passed amendment concerning water and moss arrows and the proposed amendment concerning light sources.

[downwinder]

i got a idea that will solve all question about rules

have someone make a small mission forcing the player to follow the strict rules of ghosting ,if the person can complete mission without failing they then know the rules and can use that same system in all other missions,ofcourse if they are ghostable

then people if they got any question can play the mission and it would answer the question/s they had

mission can be done in section for certain rules

i am just a bit ahead of my time

[ultravioletu]

@Grandmauden: agree. The rule intention was to deal with slow fall, speed and invisibility potions. The "normal" usage of holy water - to damage or kill undead - is forbidden anyway by ghost rule #2 "No combat damage may be dealt", therefore it needs no additional explicit restriction.

@downwinder: Sneak-enforcing missions (more or less ghosting) exist, starting with OM Framed, or with FM The Art of Thievery to name one of the oldest I know (altough it's admittedly big). I am not sure that the engine can enforce all ghosting rules, especially the Supreme #7 (e.g. "no unnecessary pickups" or "return pickpocketed key on the patrol route"). But the authors can meet the engine halfways, by providing no arrows, no potions, no switches to lights/cameras/etc, and additional objective to bring back items (keys) to their original place.

If one wants to try out ghosting with new missions, sensut's Nosferatu is a small enough one, with few AI and no particularly complicated challenges. And there is an objective that forbids getting into combat mode with human enemies.

Alternately (or as a starter!), one can simply watch some of klatremus's videos.

[smithpd]

Hi, I am Peter Smith, the original author of the ghosting rules, with help and ample discussion from others on the Eidos forum and a few others, including Klatremus. Clayman invented the term, and Sneak was an avid original ghoster. I am pleased that people still have an interest in ghosting, and anyone who wants to be custodian of the rules would be welcome to do so, provided they don't wreck the original premises. ultraviolatetu, I don't know you personally, but I am happy to meet you.

I want to start with some general concepts and deal with detailed proposals in a later post.

First, I would like to remark that the purpose of the normal ghosting rules is to simply clarify details of the general premise: don't be seen or heard, and don't damage AI or property. The spirit of the premises, and not the details, are what matters. And then the Supreme rules were intended to add elements: don't leave any trace of your being there, and don't use artificial means of satisfying the normal rules, especially no dousing lights and mossing floors. Other ghosting variants, in my opinion, are unnecessary to codify as rules unless there is strong need or desire for them among the ghosting community.

And then there is another guideline. It is perfectly OK to fail ghosting. Or if a mission cannot be ghosted that is fine, too. There is no shame in that. If you write it up, you can say that you succeeded except for a certain few busts. But you cannot say you succeeded generally if you didn't. That said, it is common practice nowadays to design missions so they can be ghosted. That largely eliminates one of of the fun aspects of ghosting, which is to find extraordinary means to solve an otherwise intractable problem. To me, design for ghosting makes often it too easy.

In a similar vein, I think that adding rules simply to make ghosting easier or to cover situations in one mission is not a good idea. The existing rules have worked for a long time -- almost 20 years. It is better to admit failure, in my opinion, and to discuss the failure. It is also OK to leave a little ambiguity. You, the player, should know when you are within the spirit of ghosting.

I have been a little busy lately, but I'll be back later to comment on some of the specific proposals so far. Meanwhile, I want to voice my objection to one statement:

If there are no objections during the next days, the above changes become valid automatically.

There should be no rush or automatic promotion. Some elements of the original rules were discussed for months at Eidos, with long threads devoted to particular topics, such as property damage. For example, does bashing a door damage it? (maybe not, but the decision is that bashing doors is artificial entry and not allowed). I think there is no reason to be hasty, and people who are experts should be given time to weigh in, even sent emails if necessary to wake them up. I would appreciate the opportunity and the courtesy to weigh in. I would not have known about this thread if a friend had not notified me.

I think Klatremus should also weigh in on Supreme rules, if he is available. FYI, Klatremus and I have been in e-mail conversation about several aspects of Supreme, and I think he has the spirit of it down pat.

[ultravioletu]

Hi Peter,

good to hear that you're back, now the discussions is triggered, there is no need to hurry, of course. I also had offline conversations with klatremus, I'll drop him a line to weigh in. Probably is too busy with DCE and avoids the forum to stay away from spoilers

You don't know me since I wasn't active on Eidos forums, but I tell you that I prefer ghosting playstyle. From watching the famous "let's really ghost Thief" series of videos, I came to learn the beauty of supreme rules. Strictly by the rules I am hardly a ghoster, since there are few missions where I did not have to resort to some extents to loot lists or loot-related spoilers - against rule #9. Because of that I don't usually write ghost reports. Altough I am mightily tempted to record and upload, as tribute to klatremus, my supreme run of sensut's Nosferatu.

Thanks for the warm welcome, in any case.

[downwinder]

rule #1 of true ghosting if you fail at any point restart mission from scratch,lets be honest we all know about save and reload=we all use it often no matter what style we play,but if some want to claim to be able to do the so called hardest experience on thief shouldn't the rule #1 come into effect

imaging playing a mission from scratch and getting to finish with out having to reload,now that is impressive,considering random opening of doors and hoping the guard is not to close to hear it

that is why i feel if this should be done ,why not just make a true mission when if you caught save file is erased,i would love to try something like that

here is a example in simple terms "you open a door in mission guard hears,ok reload,now wait 5 seconds open door guard still a bit to close,reload,now wait 10 seconds open door ok coast is clear.

^does that seems like that took anyskill?

in stead of trying to make rules that ever change,just make a mission that has such strict rules while playing you just have to survive mission and stats can show results in end if the person can complete it in the first place


^^^^^^^^alot to absorb but i want to make sure people know what true skill is over reload/save/reload/save/etc



i posted all this as i wish there was a true ghost map i can do i need a challenge,but don't like the idea of having to reload if i mess up,i want to start over,so a.i. paths would have to have a way to know with out alerting them to give player a chance at not alerting them,like a tiny window/etc

so many things would have to don't step by step to make rules work i know,but the experience in end would be a truly hard experience with no saves/reloads but for sure a way to do map if smart

[Grandmauden]

rule #1 of true ghosting if you fail at any point restart mission from scratch

imaging playing a mission from scratch and getting to finish with out having to reload,now that is impressive

That's called the Iron Man playstyle, which is very different from ghosting. Both are impressive feats, for sure, but they also require different strategies.

that is why i feel if this should be done ,why not just make a true mission when if you caught save file is erased,i would love to try something like that

i posted all this as i wish there was a true ghost map i can do i need a challenge,but don't like the idea of having to reload if i mess up,i want to start over

You don't need someone to create a mission like this. Just play any OM or FM, but if you fail, simply click "New Game" instead of "Load." Iron Man is a self-imposed challenge, after all, and people have been doing this playstyle for a long time.

just make a mission that has such strict rules while playing you just have to survive mission and stats can show results in end if the person can complete it in the first place

While it's technically possible to play both Iron Man and Ghost / Supreme Ghost at the same time, there's a reason people only play one or the other: ghosting has absolutely no margin for error. Any given mission could have a number of scenarios where the player must maneuver with extreme precision to avoid busting the ghost (e.g. jumping a gap at a certain angle, creep-crawling at the very edge of a guard's visual range, or dropping an item at a certain spot so you can land on it silently). Not to mention that sometimes, you need pure luck (e.g. waiting for a guard to pivot in a certain direction before a patrol comes around the corner and catches you), and there's always the possibility of a glitch screwing you over (e.g. the infamous rope arrow bug).

Ultimately, having to restart the entire mission and do everything over again just because you ran into some bad luck or made a misstep near the exit ends up being extremely frustrating, rather than a difficult but fun challenge.

but i want to make sure people know what true skill is over reload/save/reload/save/etc

The skill in ghosting a mission doesn't come from saving and reloading over and over until you find that one gap in a guard's patrol. The true skill of ghosting comes from encountering an obstacle, observing and experimenting with said obstacle, and finding or inventing a solution to get around that obstacle, whether it be an alternate route or using objects in a clever way, all within a self-imposed list of restrictions.

In short, ghosting is about puzzle-solving, especially in situations that the author didn't intend to be puzzles. To get a better idea of what I mean, go read some of klatremus's ghost reports on his website, or watch his ghosting videos on Youtube.

While Ghosting and Iron Manning are both fun challenges for veteran players who've mastered the gameplay and know the mission down to the last detail, these two playstyles require different skillsets and levels of patience, so it's probably best to keep them separate.

[smithpd]

Following are my comments on a few suggestions above.

But it must be further refined like this (changes in blue):
Those balloons you used do not appear in a Reply With Quote, unless I am missing something. Am I?
EDIT: Nested quotes used to work for me, but I can't make them work now. Again, am I missing something?

Copy / pasting, you said:
6d. It is allowed to remove light sources to obtain loot (e.g. lighted candlesticks) or to complete puzzle elements, as long as the player does not use the additional darkness for concealing purposes. It is also allowed to remove light sources created by the player, for instance torches lit for completing puzzle elements.

I have some problems with this
a) "as long as the player does not use the additional darkness". Additional darkness cannot be prevented initially. What should the player do, run to a light area? My personal preference would be for snuffable gold candlesticks to be unobtainable under Supreme rules because they are analogous to putting out torches. That keeps it simple.
b) I think that removing light sources created by the player is inconsistent with Supreme philosophy. Why is this necessary? Klatremus should state his opinion.
c) "to complete puzzle elements" is fine in 6c, but I do not see the need of repeating it in 6d.
In short, I don't think 6d is necessary.

And this would be the best place to host official rules.

.
I agree that TTLG is the best place. I think the rules themselves should be in a closed thread and discussion should be elsewhere.

For example Titanium Man ....

I don't know what that is, but I don't think other play modes should have any effect on or interaction with the ghost rules. For example, we used to play speed runs as well as Speed Ghost and Speed Supreme Ghost. There were no specific requirements. Only posted records. No changes were necessary to the Ghost aspects.

Anyway, "The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes..." the problem with rules like that is that unless you stipulate ALL exceptions, there is nothing to stop a player inventing a made up purpose. For example, my purpose in using the moss arrow is decoration. I like the way their green pattern contrasts with the floor. And if that coincidentally means that section of florr becomes quieter, well so be it.

That is a good point. I agree with whitelisting a couple of well-known cases, but I would hate to see this become a chore or a constant stream of requests to make ghosting easier. BTW, I have found that water arrows can turn off light switches. Is this universal? If so, I would not be opposed to making moss illegal except to the minimum extent needed to solve puzzles. A hidden entrance to a temple in the Black Frog comes to mind. The key distinction is that the use of moss for light switches is not necessary for game play. It could simply be called a Supreme Ghost bust if you could not ghost it with the light on or turn the light off manually. This would be a departure from what has been accepted.

rule #1 of true ghosting if you fail at any point restart mission from scratch.

I have never seen this term "true ghosting". It seems like a misnomer. It is not the true / original way. We used to call it "ironman." "Ironman" is just another of those superposition adjectives like "speed" and Perfect Thief that, in my opinion does not need to be an integral part the rules. It could be a footnote:
Perfect Thief = Ghost success with all the loot and secrets.
Speed Ghost = Ghost success as fast as you can (good for competitions).
Ironman Ghost = Ghost success without any reloads.

here is a example in simple terms "you open a door in mission guard hears,ok reload,now wait 5 seconds open door guard still a bit to close,reload,now wait 10 seconds open door ok coast is clear.

^does that seems like that took anyskill?

Maybe, maybe not. Timing can be difficult, especially with multiple guards involved. Reloads are a necessary part of traditional ghosting. Ironman is traditionally optional, as it should be. Ironman Ghosting can be very tedious.

[smithpd]

While Ghosting and Iron Manning are both fun challenges for veteran players who've mastered the gameplay and know the mission down to the last detail, these two playstyles require different skillsets and levels of patience, so it's probably best to keep them separate.

I agree with everything you said in your post.

[ultravioletu]

I have some problems with this
a) "as long as the player does not use the additional darkness". Additional darkness cannot be prevented initially. What should the player do, run to a light area? My personal preference would be for snuffable gold candlesticks to be unobtainable under Supreme rules because they are analogous to putting out torches. That keeps it simple.
b) I think that removing light sources created by the player is inconsistent with Supreme philosophy. Why is this necessary? Klatremus should state his opinion.
c) "to complete puzzle elements" is fine in 6c, but I do not see the need of repeating it in 6d.
In short, I don't think 6d is necessary.

• a: what I meant was: if the player can completely traverse an area with the candlestick on, then the lack of candlestick light does not offer him any "competitive advantages", so it'd be okay to snuff it. If that sounds a little too complicated and subject to subjective interpretation, fine with me to reject it, but at least allow for candlesticks in unpatrolled rooms (like Ramirez’ bathroom in the TFix'd Assassins, or artist's bedroom in Murder Most Foul).
• b: example: the torch that must be light by player in Calendra's Legacy mission 1 (A Meeting with Basso) to access a loot area, action allowed by Supreme #6c. Although not explicitly stated by Supreme #7, the "restore initial state" intention behind it would require the torch to be put out again.
• c: indeed, removing light via water arrows is implicitly allowed by #6c ("other arrows), but does not cover turning off lights via switch, or picking up a mushroom. If these actions must be done to complete a puzzle element (and not to obtain "stealth") they should be treated equally.

I'm coming back to CL situation. Currently, it is possible to Supreme that cave via a technicality. As putting out lit torches is not explicitly required by rule #7, leaving the torch burning is okay according to the rules, but it contradicts what I interpret to be the spirit of the Supreme mode, as described in "Premise". My intention with this discussion is not to "make Supreme easier", but to slightly adapt the rules to reward the playing style that stays true to the spirit of supreme ghosting.

Sure, one alternative is indeed "here's the rules, deal with them, fail is okay", and I will comply with a majority decision. But my feeling is that it breaks a bit the immersion.

[ultravioletu]

Anyway, "The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes..." the problem with rules like that is that unless you stipulate ALL exceptions, there is nothing to stop a player inventing a made up purpose. For example, my purpose in using the moss arrow is decoration. I like the way their green pattern contrasts with the floor. And if that coincidentally means that section of florr becomes quieter, well so be it.

That is a good point. I agree with whitelisting a couple of well-known cases, but I would hate to see this become a chore or a constant stream of requests to make ghosting easier. BTW, I have found that water arrows can turn off light switches. Is this universal? If so, I would not be opposed to making moss illegal except to the minimum extent needed to solve puzzles. A hidden entrance to a temple in the Black Frog comes to mind. The key distinction is that the use of moss for light switches is not necessary for game play. It could simply be called a Supreme Ghost bust if you could not ghost it with the light on or turn the light off manually. This would be a departure from what has been accepted.

Re: “constant stream…”: but that's exactly what makes a good ruleset: the constant grooming. Including relaxing the restrictions for situations which do not contradict the spirit, and in the same time ensuring that "creative" exploitations as per above are evaluated and if necessarily explicitly forbidden. In real life, there is a reason why we still have Legislative bodies and why decades- or even century-old Constitutions have amendments…

Peter, I guess I know where your reservations come from - the "Undercover" exception that triggered requests for similar treatment. I completely agree with your opinion - stated elsewhere - that this particular exception should not have been granted in the first place (rendering the OM unghostable, which is truthful, judging by the spirit and intentions of ghosting, regardless of how offhand and liberally one may interpret them).

But you can't compare the situations.

[klatremus]

Hey everyone,

Sorry I've been busy this last week. UV finally gave me a nudge by pointing out this thread. First, I am very impressed and encouraged by the enthusiasm still present around the Ghost/Supreme rules this many years later. It seems Ghosting has had a bit of a resurgence lately. If my reports and videos have played a small part in that, I am happy.

I think Peter Smith and I agree on one vital point:

It is perfectly OK to fail ghosting. Or if a mission cannot be ghosted that is fine, too. There is no shame in that. [...] It is common practice nowadays to design missions so they can be ghosted. That largely eliminates one of of the fun aspects of ghosting, which is to find extraordinary means to solve an otherwise intractable problem. To me, design for ghosting makes often it too easy. In a similar vein, I think that adding rules simply to make ghosting easier or to cover situations in one mission is not a good idea.

I firmly agree with his last statement, which is why I am a little leery about making more amendments. I have actually over the years noticed how I enjoy ghosting missions that never was made with that mode in mind more than recent ones that take it into account (sometimes too heavily). The ghosting of individual situations within missions have become more enjoyable to me than claiming the overall mission success. The adding or amending of rules could thus help dilute the rules more than solidify them, regardless of what was the original intent. "Since we amended there, then why not over here also" is the thinking I'm afraid of.

That being said, I do agree with the two suggestions so far, although I don't think I necessarily agree with UV's wording on the removing of light sources rule. It seems very difficult to interpret "using additional darkness for concealing purposes". Previously mentioned was the candlestick at the artist's studio in Murder Most Foul. My thought is that there is a chance someone outside could see the light go out, and call for help because they suspect foul play. A Supreme Thief wouldn't even take that chance, and that to me encompasses the spirit of that mode. I therefore agree with Peters thought on leaving lit candlesticks where they are. For my Thief Gold let's play I accepted taking the candlesticks because they never emitted light in the original release. I am however agreeing with somehow accepting the removal of light sources for puzzles, though I also understand the difficulty of this rule's implementation.

I don't think holy water vials necessarily fit in that category. They only affect Garrett's water arrows rather than Garrett himself, and it's debatable whether they even count as potions (Garrett doesn't drink them, he just dips his water arrows in them). At the very least, I think the use of holy water vials should be permissible if you need a holy water arrow to complete a puzzle element, like ultravioletu mentioned above.

This I 100% agree with. I even thought the same as Grandmauden recently, even looking up the difference between 'vials' and 'potions'. Potions are chemical concoctions aiming to introduce or enhance some natural ability. You could argue a Supreme thief wouldn't even take the risk of altering his body to such an intoxicated state for fear of potential unpredictable outcomes or side effects. Holy Water vials are just modifying regular water arrows, which are allowed even under the Supreme rules, as long as they are not used to remove light sources. Plus, when holy water fonts are allowed for such a purpose, then the vials should be as well. But I also think this is possible to interpret from the current rules, so no amendment is needed. Perhaps holy water vials could be explicitly stated as not being considered a potion. Come to think of it, I have never even heard the term 'holy water potion'.

My two cents, anyway...

[klatremus]

Including relaxing the restrictions for situations which do not contradict the spirit, and in the same time ensuring that "creative" exploitations as per above are evaluated and if necessarily explicitly forbidden.

This is a good point ultravioletu. I don't think the rules we are trying to clarify, Peter, have the aim of making the overall mode easier. If someone by chance would find a loophole that clearly violates the spirit of the mode without necessarily going against any of the rules, then I think the community would voice it's opinion and forbid it. The same applies here with the thought of clarifying possible in-game puzzle elements in lieu of the rules that describe the removal of lights and the use of holy water.

[klatremus]

I forgot to say that I totally agree that the official ghost rule thread over at Square Enix should be copied and stickied here, while keeping a discussion thread separate. Perhaps this one can be modified to fill such a need.

[smithpd]

Thanks, klatremus. Please tell us, in view of your comments, how you would handle the proposed amendment 6d, or do you agree with me that it is unnecessary? My opinion on 6d was that the light removal options are not wanted apart from the statement about puzzles, which is already covered in 6c.

[klatremus]

Let me think about it. I'll get back to you in a day or two.

Quick question though, Peter: Do the current rules 6a and 6c allow for dousing of torches to solve a puzzle?

[smithpd]

Quick question though, Peter: Do the current rules 6a and 6c allow for dousing of torches to solve a puzzle?

I don't think so. Rule 6a explicitly says no dousing of torches. 6c says you can use water arrows to solve puzzles, but does not mention dousing torches (removal of lights). As it stands, if you doused a torch to solve a puzzle, that would violate 6a.

I agree with ultravioletu that it should be clarified. I have a bit of a problem with the wording of the ultravioletu's proposed 6d, "as long as the player does not use the additional darkness for concealing purposes." How can one be sure of that? Then you may have to qualify it further with "no AI's can ever be capable of seeing the player in that room, either from inside or outside the room." it seems forced to me. That is the crux of the issue, as it was with the snuffable candlesticks. To me, it is easier to say no removal of any light source for any purpose. And, if that situation arises, and it is necessary to douse the torch, call it a Supreme bust.

How often does it, in fact, arise?

Please think about it. Perhaps you can suggest improved wording.

[Yandros]

I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me as if 6d's purpose is mostly to make it possible to Supreme missions which have loot candlesticks which must be doused to take. That seems like it could become a slippery slope of creating rules for the purpose of making Supreme or ghosting in general possible in certain missions. As was said earlier, there is no shame in failing to ghost a mission, the fun is in the play and the reporting; whether or not Ghost or Supreme was achieved is just a matter of consequence more than a trophy to be hoisted.

[klatremus]

Ok, so here's my take on it. It seems like this discussion is dealing with 4 somewhat separate possible rule amendments. 3 of them are dealing with light and 1 regards potions.

A. Removing light sources to complete puzzles.
After careful consideration, I think rule 6a is ultimately so clear that allowing exceptions to it would be treading into a territory that would, by principle, go against the spirit of the Supreme rules. There are situations where you have a puzzle, for example in a tomb, completely devoid of enemies, where putting out a torch in order to proceed through the mission isn't done to avoid getting spotted. Instead you are forced to do so due to the gameplay mechanics chosen by the mission author. Nobody would ever know and there is no chance that it would ever cause an alert to be avoided. I easily understand the argument there. The situations that become troublesome are where you have a room that is occasionally patrolled, or adjacent to a room being patrolled, or where there are windows out to an area that is patrolled or viewed by enemies. What do you do then? Should it be up to the player to decide, or should the rules specify each such possible scenario? Again, since the rule previously worded a principled "no removal of light sources", introducing exceptions would start to break that principle.

I vote to keep the puzzle rule as is and stick to the no removal of light sources. If you have to remove a light source, then so be it. Call it a bust and deal with it. Again, there is no shame in failing. It's not as if you didn't manage to Supreme it properly and your abilities limited your level of success.

B. Removing light sources when emitted from a loot item.
My argument here is essentially the same as in A. A counterpoint might be that taking loot is such a principled part of the game that no thief would forego the taking of loot simply because it was also emitting light. After all, to reduce suspicion you would argue you should stop taking loot once the objective has been met, but that is not required following the Supreme mode. Additionally, this issue is arising now because only in recent years have we seen fan missions with light emitting loot. Those didn't exist in the original missions, nor in early fan missions, around the time the Supreme rules were made.

I vote, though more doubtful than in A, to disallow the taking of light emitting loot for Supreme. However, if there is an overwhelming sense o votes the opposite direction, I would accept it.

C. Removing light sources that have been turned on by the player, for example to complete a puzzle.
This I strongly think should be allowed for Supreme. First, I have always interpreted the rules that way in the past. Second, it follows the mode's spirit, see rule 9. Third, the idea in rule 6a is not to remove light sources that were there when you started the mission. I'd almost recommend removing such light sources should be required, again following rule 9.

If we want to clarify rule 6a to reflect this, perhaps:
6a. No dousing of torches. Turning off electric lights, snuffing candles, or removing any light source including Mushrooms is also Not Allowed. Removing light sources directly created by the player, for example in order to complete a puzzle, is allowed.

D. Allowing the use of holy water vials.
I think this should be allowed. Holy water vials are not potions, though they could easily be confused as such (as I myself have done in the past). The rule is referring to chemicals (or drugs) that enhance Garrett's bodily functions. Holy water is simply a weapon altering liquid, not ingested by Garrett or influencing him in any way.

I suggest:
5. Inventory and Weapons: You can not purchase weapons and inventory items from the store at loadout. This thief doesn’t even go to the store to chance being seen and identified purchasing said items. Use nothing that would leave a trace or remnant of evidence. No Potions can be used at all. Rope Arrows and Scouting Orbs can be used but they must be retrieved. Holy water vials are not considered potions and are allowed.

------------------------------------------

Lastly, remember that any player is always free to interpret the rules in good faith, report a success/failure and discuss the reasons behind it in the text. As long as reports are done honestly and openly, nobody should frown upon the player, unless something has been blatantly and purposely overlooked.

Let me know what you guys think. These are just my suggestions and shouldn't be taken as more than such. Again, I love seeing the interest in and enthusiasm around the Supreme ghost mode.

[Starker]

You know, if Supreme Ghost gets too easy, I was playing around with loot restrictions a long time ago when I tried ghosting. I don't really know what to call it... maybe Scavenger Ghost? Basically, the idea is that you are only allowed to take loot that nobody would miss or where there could be a plausible reason for the item missing other than it having been stolen. So you can take things from uninhabited areas, things that have fallen on the ground outside, wines (someone could have drunk it), things that seem to have rolled under the bed, etc.