smithpd on 12/1/2021 at 00:24
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 on 12/1/2021 at 11:33
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 on 12/1/2021 at 11:47
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. :p 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 on 12/1/2021 at 12:07
Quote Posted by Galaer
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 on 12/1/2021 at 12:09
Quote Posted by 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. :p 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)?
marbleman on 12/1/2021 at 12:36
Rocks aren't property, so it doesn't matter that you moved it, crowbar or no crowbar. Again, if I understand the wording of the rule and Peter's clarifications, the mere fact of removing an obstacle doesn't matter. What counts is visible or implied damage, as is with the case of using bolt cutters.
The weakened wall being pushed out does not appear in a different state; it's just located in a different place, overturned. The rest of the wall already has a gigantic hole in it, which is not made by myself, so there is no damage here. Actually, I'm gonna bring up (
https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146197&page=2&p=2368046&viewfull=1#post2368046) an example from Disorientation here, particularly the following passage: "There, I find a loose brick in the wall separating his shop from the alchemist's. I take the brick out of the wall and pick up the alchemist's key through the hole. Then, I place the brick as close to the wall as I can since I cannot place it back inside of it."
There is no way taking out a loose brick out of that wall is property damage. The brick is already loose. The best I can do for Supreme is put it next to the wall, the nearest logical place. In Burrick, the situation is basically the same, but we have a loose piece of wall instead of a single brick this time. I don't see how it's different except we cannot put the loose wall close to the rest of it, which should be excused.
klatremus on 13/1/2021 at 00:05
Well, thank you so much for responding Peter. I am happy your response was aligned with my ideas, not because I want to be right above all, but because I was hoping I had understood the main spirit of the rules and the main ideas laid out by the mode's creators. I think it is pretty obvious then that natural objects like boulders, foliage, etc. are
not breaking the rule if destroyed, whether it is done by Garrett's hands, weapons, items, and whether there is visible damage or not. Those items do not even fall under the category 'property'. The rule was meant to cover man-made objects. However, there are probably going to be objects that fall somewhere between, and like Peter said "the distinction is arbitrary". Those cases the player will either just have to make a decision and report it, or first come ask here in the discussion thread and based on the consensus of the community hopefully we can come to an agreement. Something we haven't discussed before is if there are readables or story elements that make it obvious that something that appear natural (like icicles) have indeed been constructed by a person (like for example if in Trial of Blood a journal somewhere boasted about a person creating the icicles in order to block the passage for Garrett), then it would fall under the category 'property' because it evidently is someone's construct. But unless the mission says so explicitly, natural objects do not count.
The other thing Peter points out (and marbleman confirmed) is that there has to be visible/audible or implied damage. And it should also take some sort of object/weapon/force in order to damage it. Thus, the wall in Sound of a Burrick is
not property damage for two reasons: 1) It is weak enough for Garrett to simply push, and 2) It falls out in one piece, much like a door that can't be closed, and is not fragmented and therefore not damaged. You can imagine two strong guys coming there later and placing the wall piece back, without telling the owner the wall has been destroyed.
Quote Posted by marbleman
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.
This is a difficult distinction to determine. If you have a ruined house with haunts in it, breaking a door to gain access would still be property damage, even though it's not owned by the man who made it any longer, but instead undeads. Or did you mean since it was
at one point made by men, then it would be property? Perhaps I misinterpreted. Maybe there won't be that many cases where this becomes applicable even, so perhaps there's no point in making it a rule. If we did, to me spiders, burricks and beasts like that no, people and apebeasts yes, undeads I would also say yes because in some missions there are clever ghosts that talk and make evil contructions. Zombies no, but then again they don't ever make anything (unless it was a modified clever zombie and in that case perhaps could talk). Craymen are sort of borderline. I'd say they probably fall into the beast category. I'm just thinking out loud as I'm writing right now, so let me know what you guys think.
smithpd on 13/1/2021 at 16:15
Thanks, Klatremus.
I don't think it matters who or what occupies the building containing the property. It could be empty. To me, the only thing that matters is that the item / property was placed there by someone, some thing, who intended it to block passage. It could have been magic or a god. So maybe we need to replace the phrase "man-made" with "fabricated." My basic principle is to adhere to the concept of ghosting and to keep it simple. Moving a boulder is allowable because it is easily moved and was not fabricated -- just arranged -- and it is natural. Frobbing and moving loose stones in a wall is allowed because, even though the wall was fabricated, nothing is broken that was not already damaged. If you had to bash the stones with your sword or blackjack, I would call it damage.
Another case not discussed immediately above is a passage that is boarded up. In one recent mission, the boards could be frobbed, removed, and set aside. I would not call that damage. In other missions I have played, one had to hit the boards with a sword or blackjack to remove them. They made a cracking noise, and the boards flew apart in pieces with a sufficient number of blows. I would call that damage. The distinction is the act of breaking or bashing something.
Breaking icicles seems to be a special case that is allowable because they are natural. If you can prove, say by a readable, that the icicles were placed there deliberately (how would you fabricate them?) to block a passage, then I would be tempted to call that damage. Still, I don't really like that distinction because it adds complexity. I wonder if it has ever occurred. It would be simpler so say that breaking icicles is OK.
Does all that make sense?
klatremus on 13/1/2021 at 17:28
That is all perfectly aligned with my thinking. I agree with all you just said.
Cigam on 15/1/2021 at 21:38
If the prohibition on property damage is to minimise evidence of your passing through, and thee amount of suspicion raised, then isn't it the permanent altering of the environment that is the issue,rather than the fact that it was owned by somebody?
Someone familiar with the environment might say "wasn't like that this morning", whether it is owned vines that were cut, or not.
If the prohibition is simply about preventing the player from removing intentional barriers via "artificial" means, then it wouldn't matter whether you bash through a wall or neatly pry out the bricks, either way this is an artificial way to get past the wall. And either way you weaken its integrity from what it was. And it will look in a worse state.
Still, 'no visible damage to intentionally-placed obstacles' is certainly clear. Though I still think causing visible degredation to such barriers and structures would count. Including the aformentioned brick and plank removals.