Galaer on 2/1/2021 at 19:17
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 on 9/1/2021 at 23:55
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 on 10/1/2021 at 00:52
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 on 10/1/2021 at 01:28
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 on 10/1/2021 at 03:42
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 on 10/1/2021 at 05:28
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 on 10/1/2021 at 09:54
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 on 10/1/2021 at 11:00
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 on 10/1/2021 at 22:17
@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 on 10/1/2021 at 22:37
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 :p), 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.