Official Ghost Rules - clarification

[dafydd]

[Folks]

I think a consensus is emerging here, one that (I believe) Clayman shares:

1) The form of ghost that most everybody plays nowadays is what Clayman calls "fun ghost" or "basic ghost," and the rules for that are, by consensus, pretty much what Peter posted in the other thread; at this point, I think we're only quibbling about specific wording and formatting.

2) There are other forms of ghost, including supreme ghost -- about which I haven't seen any arguments -- and strict or pure or abstract ghost. We all agree (now that Clayman has clarified) what the rules of strict ghost are; we only disagree on its utility.

So far, though we haven't dragged in the rest of the old guard, I don't think any of you is in disagreement with the fundamentals. We (old guard plus new Turks) can continue to debate the value of strict ghost while at the same time getting the wording and formatting right for the presentation of ghost.

Am I wrong?

Dafydd

[Old Man]

Y'alls can take my deafening silence to be agreement. E&OE.

And I can't think of anyone better capable of improving on the form and wording than the guy who's been entertaining us with his recent delightful Ghost reports. Thank you, dafydd, for those.

I wouldn't mind seeing clayman's italicized scenario as preample or preface by the author or abstract or whatever you want to call it but that's just me.

And the folksy flavour of the original I will miss too. I'm sure someone bothered to point out the "It OK" typo in the day but while I was being weaned on Ghost Mode it was never mentioned. We were all too busy playing.

[clayman]

dafydd,

Your last two posts bothered me a bit, it seems you've fallen into the Vanguard pit and can't get out.

Vanguard has been against changing the rules in the past for a lot of very good reasons, but mostly because the concerns surround the issue of failure. You used words like "quit" and "don't" in your supposed response a Pure Ghost is to have if faced with an insurmountable mission challenge. I think that is wrong-headed. You don't quit and throw down your toys in frustration like a child with a tantrum, the Ghost simply continues to Ghost, reloading and doing it based on the original rules, abandoning Strict for a minute or two and noting the change of tactic in whatever results post is put up. No shame or pain there. Or, horror of horrors, the Ghost finds out the mission cannot be Ghosted by either set of rules, and must admit (supposed) defeat and play it by the everyman rules for a minute or two. You still finish the mission saying "I Ghosted it all but (blank)." But you (as a collective group of Strict naysayers) still aren't satisfied.

Why quit the mission ? Why give up entirely ? And why throw up your hands and exclaim that this mode of play doesn't pass muster as it makes too many missions unGhostable ?

I have said it several times : there is streak of pride a mile wide with a bunch of you. It just is for some reason unacceptable to have a mode of play that cannot be performed successfully throughout the entirety of probably 75% of the missions. The simple but apparently elusive fact that 99% of every mission out there can be Pure Ghosted through 99% of its respective map has totally escaped you all.

So you fall back and say, "I like the old rules better, they are more fun, and allow more opportunity for success." And someone even called the Garrett playing by the new rules a "coward". Pah. Seems like the cowards are leaning on the old walking cane that is the original rules when they call others cowards.

Sneak is right, Pure/Strict/Whatever Ghost is precisely what I had in mind when I dreamed this up 4 years ago, I just made a feeble first attempt at conveying the concept whe I wrote the original rules.

As a moral tonic for all this blathering going on here, I have been enjoying Christmas Eve by 1) alternating between a Ghost run of Song of the Caverns, 2) a murderous campaign in the original Delta Force, and 3) a very large vodka collins.

Cheers, and Merry Christmas to all !

[Sneak]

Merry Christmas Guys!

Am heading out for the holidays and will pick this up later.

Hope everyone has a Great One!

[Zaccheus]

Merry X-Mas !!!

[dafydd]

[Clayman]

Why quit the mission ? Why give up entirely ? And why throw up your hands and exclaim that this mode of play doesn't pass muster as it makes too many missions unGhostable ?

...but this isn't what I'm saying. I don't say it doesn't "pass muster" because "it makes too many missions unGhostable."

I say it doesn't work as a mode of play because there is no playability difference between ghost and strict ghost: you ghost exactly the same way, and you report either strict ghost or regular ghost based solely on the mission design, not on your own achievement.

When you come back from the holidays, Clayman, why don't you try to construct a circumstance where you would make a different decision of how you play a particular mission based on whether you're playing ghost or strict ghost -- other than what I already noted, deliberately refusing to do something that will generate an objective to kill someone or break something.

I think you'll see what I mean: you play exactly the same way in both modes... the only difference between a ghost success and a strict-ghost success is whether the mission is well behaved or not, which is beyond the player's control.

You can make strict ghost a viable play style, but you have to add something that forces the player to play differently than regular ghost -- e.g., supreme ghost adds several new requirements, including not turning off lights and having to go put keys and such back where they were found.

Dafydd

[clayman]

Ok, I get it now.

Now I see the need for Supreme, although maybe not for the same reasons as some of you. Will study on it some.

[Klatremus]

Think I need some clarification on supreme rule #9: 'No triggering of traps that cause alerts or leave evidence of a Thief's passage.' Does this include spit-fire traps, fireball traps and arrow traps? Or is it limited to those where you can actually see (and sometimes pick up) the triggered result, e.g. boulder traps?

- Klatremus

[Peter Smith]

Good eye, Klatremus. I'm not sure what that means either. I hope Sneak comes along to clarify it.

One could say that any trap busts it because the owner of the house can count the number of arrows or spitballs remaining in the magazine.

[dafydd]

[Folks]

What's happening with this project to clarify the ghosting rules?

Been a couple of weeks, and nobody has posted anything.

Dafydd

[uncadonego]

I'm not a big ghoster, but according to logic, as far as I can see setting a trap off is still ghosting...if it does not bring attention of your presence to any AI. Here's why I say so:
Peter has a good point that even if the trap which is triggered goes unnoticed at the time, the householder may check it later and realize that an arrow is missing (or other ammo type). However, is that really going to matter or bust your ghost? He will also at the same time notice that everything is missing from his safe as well....
Just a thought. Even with ghosting, eventually in the real world someone will realize that they have had their abode cleaned out.

[Klatremus]

Well, I still haven't gotten any clarification...
Dunno where Sneak is, haven't seen him post here for a while now.

If you're at all interested in my opinion, I think some of them, like spit-fire or flame traps, shouldn't bust supreme. Hard to imagine any flame or spit fire ammo magazines that can track the number of shots fired. Also, no 'evidence of a Thief's passage' is left behind.

The basis for the question was my attempt to supreme ghost 'the Bonehoard', and as we all know there are quite a few traps down in those tombs. Although this mission most likely can't be supremed anyway, I'd like to get the subject clarified.

- Klatremus

PS: Is crate stacking allowed if you remove the stacked objects before the patrolling AI reaches them, or is the bust a fact as soon as you drop your first crate? (I know I like to break these rules apart and ask questions no one ever thought about thinking of )

[Sneak]

I have been up to my neck again and haven't been around. Sorry for the delay on the Supreme Ghost trap thing.

Klatremus,
Is funny you are playing the Bonehoard. When I read your first post above, The Bonehoard is what I was going to use as a reference.

Will answer with a question(s).

Would a Supreme Ghost Trigger a trap? Would he actually step on a pressure plate, stand there and let it sink under his weight and trigger fireballs, boulders, arrows, spears, gas, or whatever else might be linked to it?, Would he trip any kind of trap/device at all. NO! The guy is way too talented for that.


However, If fireballs or whatever are already Blazing away or running when you get to whatever spot it is, then obviously you did not trigger it and are good to go. You should know if you trigger or trip anything or not.

I know that what is being fallen over here is the wording of the rule and the word EVIDENCE.

Oh boy, but we could get into a long debate and discussion of what constitutes evidence and what does not.

The Dark Engine does not leave decals where fireballs have struck, arrows and spears just disappear into thin air, etc.

You just have to use your imagination. If a trap fires or trips because a Thief triggered it by stepping on a pressure plate or whatever, there is evidence and also a bad execution.

So don't trip traps!

On the stacking crates on a patrol path and moving them before an AI walks by. Nice thought, I like the angle there. But alas the rule says: You cannot stack boxes to gain access to an area when your stack is on the patrol path of an AI.

But you already knew that didn't you?
Don't think for a second that thinking like that has not been done around here.

[dafydd]

[Folks]

Interesting as is this stuff about supreme ghost, this is drifting rather far afield from the purpose of this topic, which is to clarify the ghost rules.

In the process, we have instead created a whole new mode -- abstract ghost -- and now we're debating whether a scripted fireball trap is or isn't a bust of a third mode, supreme ghost.

Can we please finish up with rewriting the regular ghost mode, so we can work on the formatting and get the dadburn thing up in the archives? That way, we will have something to be proud of as we point it out to newbies inquiring what ghost mode is.

Thanks,

Dafydd

[Klatremus]

Sneak,

then the bonehoard is unsupremable ...but we already knew that, right? The exact trap I was referring to was the head-in-the-wall with gems for eyes that shoots fire when the loot is taken. This obviously is a bust then.

- Klatremus

[Old Man]

Klatremus, that trap is Supreme Ghostable. Just place something on the pressure plate before removing the loot. Or is this somewhere else you're referring to? If so, then what about just skipping that loot. Unless you're talking about Supreme Perfect Thief?

But Down in the Bonehoard is not Supreme Ghostable. There's a ladder/rock trap near the beginning of the mission that cannot be avoided. At least I was never able to. And the rock cannot be replaced above the ladder.

Plus the only way I was ever able to Ghost the Fireshadow was to stack bones and potion vials to get at one of the objective items. And this was on his patrol path so Supreme once again is busted.

[Klatremus]

Old Man,

no, I meant that my trap-question was referring to that very trap, not that the mission was unsupremeable because of it. Sorry if I mislead you

And no, you're thinking of the Mystic Soul trap. I was referring to the stone-faced wall where you have to rope arrow down. Also some rope arrows hidden in a chest behind a pillar here, if that makes it any clearer. And I'll just skip that loot to avoid a bust.

Btw, isn't moving the skull onto the pedestal (by the Mystic Soul) also a bust? Supreme rules says you should put everything back...

Oh, and there is a way to beat that pressure plate boulder trap by the ladder. It's a real treat! Let's say that it involves using a different approach... The solution will be on my soon to be released TG Supreme Ghost web page. I'm currently down in those tombs and will officially release the site when I'm done there.

- Klatremus

Keep taffin'!

[dafydd]

Groan

[Old Man]

Originally posted by dafydd
Groan

Patience, grasshopper. I think we're all waiting on Peter Smith to rewrite the sample as per the above discussions. You've tickled him.

Here's something to help us pass the time.

[Peter Smith]

I've been very busy lately. I was away from home for three weeks and have had much RL to take care of. Also, I took a little break from administrative duties and actually played some Thief. I will get back to this shortly. I plan to review all posts made since my draft and to put up a hopefully final version.

[Peter Smith]

OK. It is done, I think. Draft 2 has been posted in the same place as before, under Official Ghost Rules. Thank you all for the excellent comments on the first draft. I have taken most of these into account in one way or another. Vanguard made some good comments, most of which I incorporated but with far fewer words. I did not include Old Man's comment on level three alert because this is arcane Dromed knowledge and not what we are accustomed to saying. I did include Sneak's interpretation of traps, as I understand it. I mentioned under Strict that there was little difference in actual game play.

Let me know if you have any further substantive comments. In short order, say two weeks, I would like to wrap this up.

[Zaccheus]

I shall have to study that in detail.


Edit:
Looks good to me.

I have only one suggestion:
When you mention a term like 'Banner Transmigration', you could put (explained further down) next to it, or even add a local link (using the '#' linking format).

[dafydd]

[Peter]

I wasn't groaning about you not finishing the rules; I was groaning about the continuing discussion about Supreme Ghost, the rules to which are not in dispute, to my understanding .

Looks really good; I think it might be a good idea, in the commentary section, to note which rule number is being commented upon.

Here is a slight problem:

2. No combat damage dealt or taken.

This, too, needs a caveat like the second rule 3 (shouldn't that be rule 4?), "...with the exception of rule 11." This just to clarify in case someone thinks, not unreasonably, that backstabbing an AI would count as combat damage dealt. So rule 2 should read:

2. No combat damage dealt or taken, with the exception of rule 11.

Actually, for brevity, I would combine rules 2 and the second rule 3 thus:

2. No combat damage may be dealt or taken and no knockouts or kills of any kind are allowed, whether or not they show up in the final stats, with the exception of rule 11.

That makes a nice transition to the first rule 3 which does allow (though frowns upon) damage from non-combat events, such as falls, partial drowning, and being clomped by machinery.

In rule 7, I would change "invisio" to "invisibility." It's the only time you use the word; there's no particular point to abbreviating it!

Dafydd

[Peter Smith]

Thanks Dafydd and Zaccheus. I have incorporated your comments.

[dafydd]

[Peter]

I think it's ready for archiving, in my opinion. We'll see what everybody else says!

Then once we all agree, we should make a general announcement here, on TtLG, and maybe also send copies to cheapthief, the Keep of Metal and Gold, Thief the Circle, and so forth.

Let us consecrate the fiftieth revision and proclaim ghost mode throughout the thief world to all its taffers.

Dafydd