PDA

View Full Version : Official Ghost Rules - clarification



Peter_Smith
6th Dec 2003, 20:12
In the FM Ghost Results thread, Sneak recently raised the issue of some typos and missing information in the official ghost rules that are found in our ancient archives. I would like to clarify the official ghost rules and post them again in the current forum's archives. Then I can edit the old archive web page and point to the clarified rules in the new archives.

Below, in two separate posts, are the original rules written by clayman followed by my attempt to clarify them. Most of the clarifications have already been agreed in threads from the Old Forum that have been lost forever. These are the original rules, folks. I have not attempted to change anything that has not already been agreed and officially adopted two or more years ago. I hope we can agree to adopt these clarifications or something similar and not use this thread to debate numerous changes in intent, such as occurred the last time we were discussing bugbeasts in the Cistern. :)

So, I give these to you for your consideration, invite suggestions for improvement, and run for cover.:rolleyes: :D

Peter_Smith
6th Dec 2003, 20:13
--------------------------------------
Original by clayman in archives
--------------------------------------

Ghost Mode Official Rules :

1.) Expert difficulty only

2.) No damage taken or received in the final stats. Damage from falls, machinery, lava etc. is allowed but frowned upon, as is the use of potions.

3.) No alerts of any AI are allowed. This includes undead, fire elementals, spiders, bots etc, all human and non-human encounters in the game. Rats are excluded due to their lack of reaction to Garrett. Watchers that go "yellow" bust the Ghost. Bots that freeze/pivot/search bust the Ghost. If a human grumbles, shifts in place and goes back to "relaxed", you are clean.

4.) No property damage allowed, no banners cut, no things burnt or destroyed. No broken glass.

5.) No loot cheats or walkthroughs allowed. A point of honor that cannot be enforced.

6.) Doors re-shut, torches re-lit, keys returned, etc. are are not necessary unless you just want to....or the condition requires it to avoid a bust.

7.) There is no time requirement, no Ironman type requirements etc., just finish the mission clean, damage free and alert free.

8.) No alerts means no distractions, noisemakers, artificial diversions that cause an AI to search for you, even if it is away from where you are. No Garrett/artifically induced suicides of AI or melees that intentionally cause AI to attack each other. No use of frog eggs allowed.

Amendment #1 : Any mission requirement that demands that the player break one of the rules above is OK to complete. For instance, like in Return to the Cathedral in Thief Dark/Gold, there is a requirement to kill all Haunts in the mission. As long as you do this without alerting other AI or breaking any other rule, it OK, have some fun...live a little. Same will apply to any similar situation in T2.

Amendment #2 - The techniques of "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" are grudgingly allowed under the Ghost rules.

Amendment #3 - The use of the "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" techniques, as well as the use of speed, inviso, and slowfall potions are considered last resorts and should be reported when posting results. Version/release of the game should also be reported since there are sometimes significant differences in gameplay between versions.

Perfect Thief Mode is defined as completing the above requirements and also obtaining the maximum loot for the particular mission.

Peter_Smith
6th Dec 2003, 20:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by clayman. Edited and clarified by Peter Smith
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ghost Mode Official Rules :

1) Expert difficulty only.

2) No damage dealt or taken in the final stats. Damage taken from falls, machinery, lava, swimming under water, etc., is allowed but frowned upon and must be reported.

2a) No knockouts and kills of any kind are allowed unless they are explicitly required by a mission objective, in accordance with Amendment #1. When such objectives are met, they must not alert any other AI according to rule #3.

3) No second level alerts, that is recognition or hunting alerts, of any AI are allowed. Examples of first level (allowed) and second level (busted) alerts are given in Amendment #4. This includes alerts of undead, fire elementals, spiders, bots, etc. -- all human and non-human encounters in the game. Rats are excluded due to their lack of reaction to Garrett.

4) No property damage allowed, no banners cut, no things burnt or destroyed. No broken glass.

5) No loot cheats or walkthroughs allowed. A point of honor that cannot be enforced.

6) Doors re-shut, torches re-lit, keys returned, etc. are not necessary unless you just want to... or the condition requires it to avoid a bust.

7) There is no time requirement, no Ironman type requirements etc.. Just finish the mission clean, damage free, and alert free.

8) No alerts also means no distractions, noisemakers, or artificial diversions that cause an AI to search for you, even if it is away from where you are. No Garrett / artificially induced suicides of AI or melees that intentionally cause AI to attack each other. No use of frog eggs allowed.

Amendment #1 - Any mission objective that explicitly demands that the player break one of the rules above is OK to complete and does not bust the ghost. Examples of such an objective are:
"Kill the bad guy."
"Kill all the Haunts" (in Return to the Cathedral)
"Kidnap Cavador" (he must be KO'ed to be picked up)
So long as you do this without alerting other AI or breaking any other rule, it is OK. Have some fun...live a little.
It is not acceptable, however, to incur a ghost bust that is "necessary" to meet another objective. For example, it is not allowed to KO an AI or slash a banner simply because they stand in the way of meeting another objective, such as to steal something.

Amendment #2 - The techniques of "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" are grudgingly allowed under the Ghost rules.
Banner Transmigration: going through a banner without slashing it, as done in Shipping and Receiving (see ghosting archives).
Nudging: moving an AI by applying pressure to it's body, causing it to shift position without noticing you.

Amendment #3 - The use of the "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" techniques, as well as the use of speed, inviso, and slowfall potions are considered last resorts and should be reported when posting results. Version/release of the game should also be reported since there are sometimes significant differences in game play between versions.

Amendment #4 - Examples of second level alerts that bust the ghost include but are not limited to:

Humans go into a hunting behavior, with arms or weapons raised.
Humans confirm that they have seen or heard you with statements like "I see you", "You can't hide any longer", or "Show yourself."
Watchers that go "yellow".
Bots that freeze/pivot/search.
Zombie that turns and heads for you.
Burrick that howls or belches green gas
Spider stops rotational motion and looks at you and/or raises feelers

Examples of first level alerts that do not bust the ghost include but are not limited to:
Human grumbles, shifts in place and goes back to relaxed.
Statements like "Must've been rats".
Human stands up in bed motionless. May grumble, as "Must've been rats."
Zombie stands up, does not hunt, and simply places chin on chest.
Watcher making a clicking noise.
Burricks that grunt.
Spider making a chirp sound without raising feelers and without deviating from its normal path or rotation pattern.

Amendment #5 - Knockouts from gas and kills using a hammer or mace do not register as damage in the stats. These and similar things are still disallowed unless explicitly required by an objective.

Amendment #6 - Melees that occur beyond Garret's control, as part of a game script, are allowed. An example is the fight between archers in Life of the Party, which is caused by Garrett approaching an area, even if he is unheard and unseen. Another example is the Night of the Living Dead event in the Fan Mission Calendra's Legacy.

Amendment #7 - Some alerts that are caused as a scripted reaction to meeting a mission objective, even though Garrett is neither seen or heard, may be allowed if agreed by a consensus of senior members of the ghosting community at the Eidos Thief Forum, on a case-by-case basis. Such alerts that have been allowed in the past include the silent alarm when taking the Eye in Return to the Cathedral and the alarm when taking the Talisman in Undercover.

Amendment #8. In spite of exceptions that have been allowed in the past, it is preferable to report doubtful results as a bust and to avoid attempts to dilute the rules with exceptions or new modes of play. There is no shame in failing to complete a mission in Ghost mode. It is intended to be a challenge that is not usually achievable.

Perfect Thief Mode is defined as completing the above requirements and also obtaining the maximum loot for the particular mission.

Gumdrop
6th Dec 2003, 21:16
Techneques such as banner transmigration and nudging are mentioned in the amendments, so I think it would be a good idea to briefly explain them, or add hyperlinks to brief explanations
in the archive. It would be better than scouring the "shipping" thread for answers.

A few mistakes I noticed...

Amendment #5 - Knockouts from gas and kills using a hammer or mace to not register...

Amendment #1... As long as you do this without alerting other AI or breaking any other rule, it OK.

Amendment #7 - Some alerts that are caused as a scripted reaction to Garrett's meeting a mission objective...

Peter_Smith
6th Dec 2003, 22:44
Thanks, Gummie. I made the grammatical changes to the ammendments. I think "Garrett's meeting" is gramatically correct (posessive, like his meeting or your meeting), but it is really the player anyway, so I just removed Garrett from consideration and omitted the modifier. :)

I have clarified banner transmigration and nudging to some extent. I think I shouldn't try to explain transmigration in detail, and I hesitate to link to another thread. I think the rules should be self contained and not too complicated. Transmigration is relevant to only one mission so far, and there is no point in belaboring it.

amievil?
7th Dec 2003, 00:36
im gonna throw a monkey wrench in the works.........rats DO alert to the player :D seriously they do, they just dont do anything after the fact. i noticed if you let a rat see you it then takes two sword slashes to kill it. hehehehehe...

Peter_Smith
7th Dec 2003, 01:20
To answer your question, yes, you are evil.:) To answer the technical issue, who cares? Nobody wants to mess around with rats. ;)

Old Man
7th Dec 2003, 02:05
Wha!? I Ghosted the basement Rats in First City Bank & Trust. They visibly react to Garrett by squeeling and running fast for cover.

Peter_Smith
7th Dec 2003, 02:14
Old Man,

I just knew you would come back with that!:) In truth, based on reports and comments I have read, I think you are the only ghoster who really cares about rats. Are you suggesting that we should change the rules? My preference is to leave the rules intact, as I think they are the majority consensus on rats, which were discussed at length a long time ago, when T2 first came out. Instead of changing the rules, I suggest that we award you with an additional honor, such as "supreme rat ghoster." :D

dafydd
7th Dec 2003, 02:48
[Peter]

All right, so Sisterhood is UN-ghosted.

How's come nobody objected to Vanguard not reporting his use of a couple of gas mines as busts -- but when I do it, all heck breaks loose? :confused:

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
7th Dec 2003, 03:07
Sorry Dafydd. There are no preferential rules or treatment here. The gas rule clarification has nothing to do with your Sisterhood post. The gas rule has been around for a long time, even if it was not written in Clayman's post. I did not see Vanguard's claim of success with gas. I think Vanguard knows that gas is not permitted. If not, it is about time he found out. ;)

The spirit of ghosting is that your presence should not be detected. Leaving BJ'ed bodies and gassed bodies around is exactly the same thing. The fact that gas does not register as damage is a quirk of the game that the no-gas rule is intended to rectify. It is the KO that matters, not the damage it creates. This is one of the reasons Sneak suggested this clarification.

amievil?
7th Dec 2003, 03:08
ah lighten up guys i was only kidding about the rats :)


i just like the squeeling sound they make when i hack them to peices with my sword.....:eek:

Peter_Smith
7th Dec 2003, 03:13
That's OK, amievil? I never took you seriously.:D I was only kidding with Old Man. Did you see my winkie?

Old Man
7th Dec 2003, 08:21
And I don't often bother with smilies feeling rather that what I've said is obviously enough a tease. And since you're the one what brought the rats up, amievel?, it's somehow fitting that you're the one that got sucked into this one. Nice teamwork Peter. :D

Sneak
7th Dec 2003, 17:10
Thanks Peter!

I think what is in the archives was chewed on by Rats cuz it isn't all there. Amazing that I had never paid attention to it before. And I may not have even seen it if Dafydd had not made an arguement based on those rules which was perfectly logical for what was written. Thanks dafydd.

What you have above now is clear.

Only point I can make are, there's a lot of amendments above. To me most of those aren't real amendments but explainatory statements. So amendment might not be the best word for some.


Am real glad this is not a debate on rules changes and just a topic on typos and missing info that needs maybe minor attention.

Honestly if some semblance of this line below was back in there it would cover a lot.

2a) No knockouts and kills of any kind are allowed unless they are explicitly required by a mission objective, in accordance with Amendment #1. When such objectives are met, they must not alert any other AI according to rule #3.

And the No damage taken or received typo is an easy one.

I am not endorsing or un-endorsing at the moment. You know who may have a peek at this and go re-read what rules are in the archive. So I will hold. Being that this is not some major appeal before the World Ghost Court which hopefully disbanded, it should be an easy one.

And agreed, you haven't made any changes to the Heart and Soul of the Rules. :)

Clayman,
If you happen to read this, it came from a bit of discussion towards the end of the FM Ghost Reports thread. I was reading some of dafydd's Reports and came across it. I then read the archives and tossed the perverbial flag out on the field.

Peter_Smith
7th Dec 2003, 18:31
Sneak,

Thanks for the silent near endorsement.;) Yes there are a lot of ammendments. These were in fact all discussed and agreed after the fact in various threads that have disappeared, apart from the last one, which exists now but also existed a long time ago. So they are kind of amendments to the original rules even if explanatory. I can't think of a better name right now, but feel free to suggest one.

I could sweep all these amendments into the rules and reorganize it to make it cleaner if you can clayman want me to. I did not do that in this round because the way it is written now you can see the original rules there with the original numbering and slightly modified wording, and you can see the progression of thought in the amendments. So the genealogy is traceable. Now, if wanted, I could take all the same words without changing any thoughts and make a clean document out of it.

As for inserting a couple of small changes "back in there", I do not think that is appropriate for a couple of reasons.

First, I copied those old threads into an HTML page without changing anything of significance, apart from one user status (ghoster extraordinaire) you may remember.:) There may have been another more complete version somewhere else that I did not have at my disposal. I would not want to revise history, but I could add a link to a new and clarified set of rules.

Second, I think that these detailed explanations, as opposed to minor corrections, are really needed, especially for ghosting newbies. Without the explanations, many people will not understand the rules. For example, the players at TTLG sometimes use relaxed and watered down interpretations. I think it is better to have it all in one place so I could simply point people to the clarified rules without having to explain the details countless times.

dafydd
7th Dec 2003, 21:08
[Folks]


Did you see my winkie?

(This begs the philosophical question... does anybody here really want to see Peter Smith's winkie?)

While ease of etymology is nice, I think clarity is better. Here is a very brief rearranging of the rules and amendments, with the amendments worked into the appropriate places as notes. Much of these constitute TMI, from my perspective, but that's a more substantial change than I want to attempt yet. I did remove the phrase "are considered last resorts," as this is completely meaningless -- how do you tell? -- retaining only that they "must" (changed from "should") be reported.

One more substantive emendation I made: in the definition of perfect thief, I remade the phrase as "also obtaining the maximum loot actually available for the particular mission." This is meant to cover situations where the stats claim that there is 2317 possible loot -- but in reality, 200 of it is unobtainable due to an error in mission design. The danger with my rephrasing is that maybe there really is that much loot, and it's just that nobody looked behind the couch for that 200-loot tiara yet, and we all just assume that if Nightwalker and Peter both missed the loot, then it's not really extant.

Thus, I'm not arguing in favor of this clarification, just suggesting it as a possibility. I really have no dog in this fight!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by clayman. Edited and clarified by Peter Smith. Reedited by Dafydd ab Hugh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ghost Mode Official Rules (explanatory notes in italics interspersed):

1) Expert difficulty only.

2) No combat damage dealt or taken in the final stats. Damage taken from falls, machinery, lava, swimming under water, etc., is allowed but frowned upon and must be reported.

3) No knockouts or kills of any kind are allowed, by any means whatsoever (including gas, hammers, and maces), whether or not they show up in the final stats, unless they are explicitly required by a mission objective in accordance with the note below. When such objectives are met, they must not alert any other AI according to rule (4).

4) No second level alerts, that is recognition or hunting alerts, of any AI (other than rats) are allowed. This includes alerts of undead, fire elementals, spiders, bots, etc. -- all human and non-human encounters in the game. (Rats are excluded due to their lack of reaction to Garrett.)

Note
Examples of second level alerts that bust the ghost include but are not limited to:

* Humans go into a hunting behavior, with arms or weapons raised.

* Humans confirm that they have seen or heard you with statements like "I see you", "You can't hide any longer", or "Show yourself."

* Watchers that go "yellow".

* Bots that freeze/pivot/search.

* Zombie that turns and heads for you.

* Burrick that howls or belches green gas

* Spider stops rotational motion and looks at you and/or raises feelers

Examples of first level alerts that do not bust the ghost include but are not limited to:

* Human grumbles, shifts in place and goes back to relaxed.

* Statements like "Must've been rats".

* Human stands up in bed motionless. May grumble, as "Must've been rats."

* Zombie stands up, does not hunt, and simply places chin on chest.

* Watcher making a clicking noise.

* Burricks that grunt.

* Spider making a chirp sound without raising feelers and without deviating from its normal path or rotation pattern.

5) No property damage allowed, no banners cut, no things burnt or destroyed. No broken glass.

Note
Any mission objective that explicitly demands that the player break one of the rules above is OK to complete and does not bust the ghost. Examples of such an objective are:

"Kill the bad guy."

"Kill all the Haunts" (in Return to the Cathedral)

"Kidnap Cavador" (he must be KO'ed to be picked up)

So long as you do this without alerting other AI or breaking any other rule, it is OK. Have some fun...live a little.
It is not acceptable, however, to incur a ghost bust that is "necessary" to meet another objective. For example, it is not allowed to KO an AI or slash a banner simply because they stand in the way of meeting another objective, such as to steal something.

The techniques of "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" are grudgingly allowed under the Ghost rules.

Banner Transmigration: going through a banner without slashing it, as done in Shipping and Receiving (see ghosting archives).

Nudging: moving an AI by applying pressure to it's body, causing it to shift position without noticing you.

The use of the "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" techniques, as well as the use of speed, inviso, and slowfall potions must be reported when posting results, along with version/release of the mission (since there are sometimes significant differences in game play between versions).

6) No loot cheats or walkthroughs allowed. A point of honor that cannot be enforced.

7) Doors re-shut, torches re-lit, keys returned, etc. are not necessary unless you just want to... or the condition requires it to avoid a bust.

8) There is no time requirement, no Ironman type requirements etc.. Just finish the mission clean, damage free, and alert free.

9) No alerts also means no distractions, noisemakers, or artificial diversions that cause an AI to search for you, even if it is away from where you are. No Garrett / artificially induced suicides of AI or melees that intentionally cause AI to attack each other. No use of frog eggs allowed.

Note
Melees that occur beyond Garret's control, as part of a game script, are allowed. An example is the fight between archers in Life of the Party, which is caused by Garrett approaching an area, even if he is unheard and unseen. Another example is the Night of the Living Dead event in the Fan Mission Calendra's Legacy.

Some alerts that are caused as a scripted reaction to meeting a mission objective, even though Garrett is neither seen or heard, may be allowed if agreed by a consensus of senior members of the ghosting community at the Eidos Thief Forum, on a case-by-case basis. Such alerts that have been allowed in the past include the silent alarm when taking the Eye in Return to the Cathedral and the alarm when taking the Talisman in Undercover.

In spite of exceptions that have been allowed in the past, it is preferable to report doubtful results as a bust and to avoid attempts to dilute the rules with exceptions or new modes of play. There is no shame in failing to complete a mission in Ghost mode. It is intended to be a challenge that is not usually achievable.

Perfect Thief Mode is defined as completing all of the above requirements and also obtaining the maximum loot actually available for the particular mission.

Sneak
7th Dec 2003, 21:11
Believe me, I am not knocking explainations. Clear ones could stop a lot of you know what. And actually thinking about it, what some of those amendments may be are explainations.

An amendment to me is altering or adding an exception to a rule.

But maybe thats all trivia.

Some of those could just be say: An example or an explaination to rule such and such. Or maybe as you say, some of thos thing could be rolled into the rule itself. No probs with that as long as they are succinct.

But out of ye olde groveling respect I should defer to Sir Leapfrog. If he doesn't chime in I can go for a link to the rules for the explaination corrections ect. Would rather have the completed full version in the archives though. Thats really his call. :)

That was my noisey near endorsement ;)

dafydd
7th Dec 2003, 21:41
[Folks]

And here is my preferred version, with Tanakh and the Talmud split into separate posts:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by clayman. Edited and clarified by Peter Smith. Reedited by Dafydd ab Hugh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ghost Mode Official Laws:

1) Difficulty: Expert difficulty only.

2) Damage: No combat damage dealt or taken in the final stats, unless explicitly (not implicitly) required by a mission objective.

3) Consciousness: No knockouts or kills of any kind are allowed, by any means whatsoever (including gas, hammers, and maces), whether or not they show up in the final stats, unless they are explicitly required by a mission objective. When such objectives are met, they must not alert any other AI.

4) Alerts: No second level alerts, that is recognition or hunting alerts, of any AI (other than rats) are allowed. This includes alerts of undead, fire elementals, spiders, bots, etc. -- all human and non-human encounters in the game. (Rats are excluded due to their lack of reaction to Garrett.)

5) Property: No property damage allowed, no banners cut, no things burnt or destroyed. No broken glass.

6) Reporting: Damage taken from falls, machinery, lava, swimming under water, etc., is allowed but frowned upon and must be reported. The use of the "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" techniques, as well as the use of speed, inviso, and slowfall potions must be reported when posting results, along with version/release of the mission (since there are sometimes significant differences in game play between versions).

7) Cheats: No loot cheats or walkthroughs allowed. A point of honor that cannot be enforced.

8) Freedom: Doors re-shut, torches re-lit, keys returned, etc. are not necessary unless you just want to... or the condition requires it to avoid a bust. There is no time requirement, no Ironman type requirements etc.. Just finish the mission clean, damage free, and alert free.

In spite of exceptions that have been allowed in the past, it is preferable to report doubtful results as a bust and to avoid attempts to dilute the rules with exceptions or new modes of play. There is no shame in failing to complete a mission in Ghost mode. It is intended to be a challenge that is not usually achievable.

Perfect Thief Mode is defined as completing all of the above requirements and also obtaining the maximum loot actually available for the particular mission.

dafydd
7th Dec 2003, 21:43
The Talmud of Ghosting

Commentary on the entire Law:

Any mission objective that explicitly demands that the player break one of the rules above is OK to complete and does not bust the ghost. Examples of such an objective are:

"Kill the bad guy."

"Kill all the Haunts" (in Return to the Cathedral)

"Kidnap Cavador" (he must be KO'ed to be picked up)

So long as you do this without alerting other AI or breaking any other rule, it is OK. Have some fun...live a little.
It is not acceptable, however, to incur a ghost bust that is "necessary" to meet another objective. For example, it is not allowed to KO an AI or slash a banner simply because they stand in the way of meeting another objective, such as to steal something.

Commentary on quirks of the Dark engine.

The techniques of "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" are grudgingly allowed under the Ghost rules.

Banner Transmigration: going through a banner without slashing it, as done in Shipping and Receiving (see ghosting archives).

Nudging: moving an AI by applying pressure to it's body, causing it to shift position without noticing you.

Commentary on the fourth law, Alerts

No alerts also means no distractions, noisemakers, or artificial diversions that cause an AI to search for you, even if it is away from where you are. No Garrett-induced suicides of AI or melees that intentionally cause AI to attack each other. No use of frog eggs allowed, as they necessarily alert AI.

Examples of second level alerts that bust the ghost include but are not limited to:

* Humans go into a hunting behavior, with arms or weapons raised.

* Humans confirm that they have seen or heard you with statements like "I see you", "You can't hide any longer", or "Show yourself."

* Watchers that go "yellow".

* Bots that freeze/pivot/search.

* Zombie that turns and heads for you.

* Burrick that howls or belches green gas

* Spider stops rotational motion and looks at you and/or raises feelers


Examples of first level alerts that do not bust the ghost include but are not limited to:

* Human grumbles, shifts in place and goes back to relaxed.

* Statements like "Must've been rats".

* Human stands up in bed motionless. May grumble, as "Must've been rats."

* Zombie stands up, does not hunt, and simply places chin on chest.

* Watcher making a clicking noise.

* Burricks that grunt.

* Spider making a chirp sound without raising feelers and without deviating from its normal path or rotation pattern.

However, melees that occur beyond Garret's control, as part of a game script, are allowed. An example is the fight between archers in Life of the Party, which is caused by Garrett approaching an area, even if he is unheard and unseen. Another example is the Night of the Living Dead event in the Fan Mission Calendra's Legacy.

Some alerts that are caused as a scripted reaction to meeting a mission objective, even though Garrett is neither seen or heard, may be allowed if agreed by a consensus of senior members of the ghosting community at the Eidos Thief Forum, on a case-by-case basis. Such alerts that have been allowed in the past include the silent alarm when taking the Eye in Return to the Cathedral and the alarm when taking the Talisman in Undercover.

Sneak
7th Dec 2003, 22:36
Hmmm,
Where is the succinct Curmudgeon when ya need him? ;)

Peter_Smith
7th Dec 2003, 23:42
Dafydd's suggestion to divide it up into rules and interpretations makes sense to me. It definitely improves readability. Tanakh and the Talmud? :rolleyes: :eek: I am not sure that Ghosting to be identified as a Jewish pursuit.;) Anyway, I like the basic idea. I would change three things and maybe edit it a slight bit. If this format is agreed, then I will do so and propose a final revision after all comments are in.

1. Call them rules and interpretations, not laws and Talmud. :)

2. The last paragraph of the rules, concerning failures and excuses for same, is out of place. It belongs in the interpretations.

3. I would format both of the sections the same way, using bold, not italics, for the subtitles.

EDIT: I modified my list after further reading.

dafydd
8th Dec 2003, 00:54
Ghost Mode Official Rules

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by clayman. Edited and clarified by Peter Smith and Dafydd ab Hugh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Difficulty: Expert difficulty only.

2) Damage: No combat damage dealt or taken in the final stats, unless explicitly (not implicitly) required by a mission objective.

3) Consciousness: No knockouts or kills of any kind are allowed, by any means whatsoever (including gas, hammers, and maces), whether or not they show up in the final stats, unless they are explicitly required by a mission objective. When such objectives are met, they must not alert any other AI.

4) Alerts: No second level alerts, that is recognition or hunting alerts, of any AI (other than rats) are allowed. This includes alerts of undead, fire elementals, spiders, bots, etc. -- all human and non-human encounters in the game. (Rats are excluded due to their lack of reaction to Garrett.)

5) Property: No property damage allowed, no banners cut, no things burnt or destroyed. No broken glass.

6) Reporting: Damage taken from falls, machinery, lava, swimming under water, etc., is allowed but frowned upon and must be reported. The use of the "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" techniques, as well as the use of speed, inviso, and slowfall potions must be reported when posting results, along with version/release of the mission (since there are sometimes significant differences in game play between versions).

7) Cheats: No loot cheats or walkthroughs allowed. A point of honor that cannot be enforced.

8) Freedom: Doors re-shut, torches re-lit, keys returned, etc. are not necessary unless you just want to... or the condition requires it to avoid a bust. There is no time requirement, no Ironman type requirements etc.. Just finish the mission clean, damage free, and alert free.

Perfect Thief Mode is defined as completing all of the above requirements and also obtaining the maximum loot actually available for the particular mission.

dafydd
8th Dec 2003, 01:03
Commentary and Interpretation of Ghosting Rules

Commentary on rules in general:

* Any mission objective that explicitly demands that the player break one of the rules above is OK to complete and does not bust the ghost. Examples of such an objective are:

"Kill the bad guy."

"Kill all the Haunts" (in Return to the Cathedral)

"Kidnap Cavador" (he must be KO'ed to be picked up)

So long as you do this without alerting other AI or breaking any other rule, it is OK. Have some fun...live a little.
It is not acceptable, however, to incur a ghost bust that is "necessary" to meet another objective. For example, it is not allowed to KO an AI or slash a banner simply because they stand in the way of meeting another objective, such as stealing something.

* In spite of exceptions that have been allowed in the past, it is preferable to report doubtful results as a bust and to avoid attempts to dilute the rules with exceptions or new modes of play. There is no shame in failing to complete a mission in Ghost mode. It is intended to be a challenge that is not usually achievable.

Commentary on quirks of the Dark engine.

The techniques of "Banner Transmigration" and "Nudging" are grudgingly allowed under the Ghost rules.

Banner Transmigration: going through a banner without slashing it, as done in Shipping and Receiving (see ghosting archives).

Nudging: moving an AI by applying pressure to its body, causing it to shift position without noticing you.

Commentary on rules of alerts

* Examples of second level alerts that bust the ghost include but are not limited to:

- Humans go into a hunting behavior, with arms or weapons raised.

- Humans confirm that they have seen or heard you with statements like "I see you", "You can't hide any longer", or "Show yourself."

- Watchers that go "yellow".

- Bots that freeze/pivot/search.

- Zombie that turns and heads for you.

- Burrick that howls or belches green gas

- Spider stops rotational motion and looks at you and/or raises feelers


* Examples of first level alerts that do not bust the ghost include but are not limited to:

- Human grumbles, shifts in place and goes back to relaxed.

- Statements like "Must've been rats".

- Human stands up in bed motionless. May grumble, as "Must've been rats."

- Zombie stands up, does not hunt, and simply places chin on chest.

- Watcher making a clicking noise.

- Burricks that grunt.

- Spider making a chirp sound without raising feelers and without deviating from its normal path or rotation pattern.

* No alerts also means no distractions, noisemakers, or artificial diversions that cause an AI to search for you, even if it is away from where you are. No Garrett-induced suicides of AI or melees that intentionally cause AI to attack each other. No use of frog eggs allowed, as they necessarily alert AI.

* Melees that occur beyond Garret's control, as part of a game script, are allowed. An example is the fight between archers in Life of the Party, which is caused by Garrett approaching an area, even if he is unheard and unseen. Another example is the Night of the Living Dead event in the Fan Mission Calendra's Legacy.

* Some alerts that are caused as a scripted reaction to meeting a mission objective, even though Garrett is neither seen or heard, may be allowed if agreed by a consensus of senior members of the ghosting community at the Eidos Thief Forum, on a case-by-case basis. Such alerts that have been allowed in the past include the silent alarm when taking the Eye in Return to the Cathedral and the alarm when taking the Talisman in Undercover.

dafydd
11th Dec 2003, 03:49
[Folks]

If no one has any more suggested changes, should we just vote?

Or just accept it by fiat? Reject it by fiat?

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
11th Dec 2003, 05:38
I agree that we need to act on this.

Voting should not be needed because all this was agreed a long time ago. Nothing has changed other than format. There have been no objections so far from the regular ghosting crowd. If anyone has any objections, please state them now. If you do object, then please offer a "better" alternative. :)

I have e-mailed Clayman to ask for his endorsement. If Clayman accepts it, then I will post the final version as a stand-alone thread and put it in the archives.

It can always be changed if there are errors or we decide to do something differently. :)

Sneak
11th Dec 2003, 06:04
And whats the big hurry? Actually I don't see a lot of takers here. Sorta a small crowd! ;)

I need to re-read a few posts up there. A couple of items above, it seems, I am not in agreement with.

I will post something on it tomorrow. Right now it's late, I am brain dead, and my matress and sheets are calling me.

I am diving in.

Now where did I hide Claymans Original Wording, hmm! Must be here somewhere!

Peter_Smith
11th Dec 2003, 06:21
There is no hurry, Sneak. It just seemed like the subject was closed due to lack of interest. Waffling doesn't count.:) The heavy hitters have passed by silently. So we thought we might as well put it to rest. I await your comments, and hopefully those of Clayman.

dafydd
11th Dec 2003, 20:49
[Peter]

So who are they?

Clayman, of course, as my understanding is that he invented the mode. Who else? Vanguard, Old Man, Sneak, and yourself -- the Council of the Five? Is anyone else in there who hasn't posted recently?

I'm late to the game, and the usher didn't hand me a program before I sat down. In fact, I never even saw her!

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
12th Dec 2003, 02:21
You got it, Dafydd. Council of five. There used to be quite a few more, but they have not posted recently. You should be an member, too, but you haven't been around long anough to know the past history regarding this particular issue.

dafydd
12th Dec 2003, 03:17
[Peter]

Or of any other issue!

Besides, I am definitely not in the league of the Five in sheer ghosting ability. As Detective Harry Callahan says, "a man's got to know his limitations." :cool:

Dafydd

Vanguard
12th Dec 2003, 03:20
Originally posted by dafydd
[Peter]

All right, so Sisterhood is UN-ghosted.

How's come nobody objected to Vanguard not reporting his use of a couple of gas mines as busts -- but when I do it, all heck breaks loose? :confused:

Dafydd

I had listed the causes for my ghost failure (I always list them at the top before the description of my gameplay). I missed adding the one about the gas mine. My ghost has already been busted so I was trying to ghost as much of the rest of the mission. The idea is after a ghost bust to decide: ghost as much of the rest as you can, or forget ghosting and do whatever you feel like. After a bust, and if I can recover well with minimal AI alerts or damage, I try to ghost the rest. However, some missions just end up with too many ghost busts and there's no point to continue ghosting any more. You either succeed or you fail when ghosting. There's no in between gray levels to some of it being ghosted and some not. This is like having the Olympics and in each event there is only one winner and all other contestants are all losers. It is an extreme measure of your ghosting ability but nobody wanted to get into how to measure or weight the type of busts. So "coming this close" means you failed, and blundering all over the place means you failed. There's only one measure of failure: you failed.

I couldn't ghost the guard in the locksmith's basement. I believe I already had other ghost busts, so this was just another one of them. The parenthetical comment after the ghost failure status line was erroneous. I didn't bust because I could skip those situations. I busted because I *had* to get the loot in those locations to make the high percentage loot objective. Ghosting requires you satisfy the loot objective. Some situations are unghostable but the loot requirement is so high a percentage of available loot that you must get that loot. So you ghost and fail because you never got enough loot, or you ghost but bust getting the required loot. Authors DO sometimes define objectives which WILL force a ghost bust. Do it, you're busted. Don't do it, you can't finish the mission (and you're busted).

Peter_Smith
12th Dec 2003, 03:25
Hi Vanguard,

Do you have any comments on the proposed restatement and reorganization of the original ghosting rules? Bear in mind that this is past history and we are not talking about changing them.

Vanguard
12th Dec 2003, 03:33
Killing rats = ghost busted.

Alerting rats = ghost intact

It's the only AI that I can recall where alerting them was considered okay. Alerting spiders wasn't okay because they could actually attack you (if you were in their attack environment). They could also alert other spiders. Rats go screaming off when alerting but don't alert any other AIs, not even other rats.

Alerting rats not causing a ghost bust wasn't my decision. One of the Eldger Ghosters decided on that. Same for you setting off the alarm in Undercover. After consideration, and only when using absolute rules, my opinion is that setting off the alarm in Undercover is an automatic ghost bust: you must snatch the taliman but doing so will set off the alarm and alert all the AIs. However, I conceded that the alarm was not a ghost bust only in that ghosting the rest of mission became so very much more difficult, so you were punished for setting off the alarm. It does come back to the argument whether *you* (as Garrett) were ever seen. There's always a lot of grayness in making decisions as to what constitutes a ghost bust.

You should read the long and heated debate for "The Cistern" regarding whether or not the teleportation to a different map within a mission with live AIs in the first map and then with them dead in the second map constituted a ghost bust. Too much interpretation and too much knowledge of how the mission was designed so I wasn't comfortable with declaring the mission was ghostable (at this spot). If there are any gray areas, you need to mention them in a ghost report.

Vanguard
12th Dec 2003, 03:38
By the way, not ALL rats in all missions can be ignored as alertable AIs that will count as a ghost bust if alerted. Don't remember the FM's name, but there are rats that will hurl exploding cheese wedges at you if they spot you. So unlike the passive rats that squeal and scurry off when alerted and don't alert any other AIs, these exploding cheese hurling rats will alert other of these rats and also the haunts and spider in the area.

You can't really claim that totally passive AIs, like rats, can be excluded from a ghost bust, however. Lots of townfolk are passive, will alert, run away, and never alert any other AI, but you're still not allowed to alert them and retain your ghost status. I really don't know why rats got excluded. I suppose that including them in the list of AIs that cannot be alerted would make a lot of missions unghostable. They are a lot harder to ghost because their paths can be so much more random than other AIs.

Vanguard
12th Dec 2003, 03:47
I was pretty much okay with the old rules. It's just sometimes tough to figure out if you really busted a rule or not. As regard to the examples, I could see this get out of hand in the number listed so maybe a separate section should be provided for those (so when you're reading the rules you don't get a lengthy interruption looking at examples).

Once the rules are set and saved somewhere, is it possible that this location NOT make the thread (or the source to which it refers) as read-only? I suspect other examples, like the dead bugbeasts in "The Cistern" after frobbing the switch to teleport to a different map, could come up later and we might like to add another example instead of having to remember them or have newbies ask again.

Sneak
12th Dec 2003, 03:58
Ok, I am in a real good mood tonight. So where do I start? Hmmm, OK!

Ghost Mode Official Rules

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by clayman. Edited and clarified by Peter Smith and Dafydd ab Hugh, Strenuously play tested by Old Man, Passionately Objected to by Vanguard, Watered Down by TTLG, Sugar Coated by Sneak, Read by TheBlackMan, Occasionally tried by Huntress,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teleported into Chaos by Gumdrop, Novel manuevers by Gman, Battle Tested by Munin the Raven, Keyholed by Lytha, Swung on by BrokenArts, Posted by Daventry, Iron Clawed by Grey Mouser, Tried Online by Leatherman, Nailed Frequently by Deadfall,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I better stop, there are so many names I could add from the distant past to the present that there is not the room nor the time. And also I would probably leave someone out.

So enough of my nonsense! ;)

There is a lot of thought taken in what is above, some interesting ideas. I wasn't sold on the Talmud but it was interesting! :) Some of this is funny! I ain't gonna look at nobodies Winkie! HA!

I originally tossed the flag out on this because of the little talk in the FM thread where Old Man and Dafydd were having a minor debate on the use of gas arrows in Ghosting a mission. I went to the archives and something was sure missing there. The No Knockout No Killing Rule.

I think Dafydd was basing his arguement on using the gas arrow in his Ghost, from another rule, I think the no damage rule or something, not positive. Also there was what I saw as a typo in the No Damage Given or Taken Rule.

Personally I don't care how what got in the archives got in there. Might be 40 good reasons for it. Musta Been Rats suites me just fine!

What I wanted was to have the rule that all us long time Ghosters know is an actual real rule, put back in there where it really is anyway. If it had been there, there would have been no doubt to Dafydd or anyone that KO's are a no no, whether by Blackjack or Gas or whatever.

And I assumed there would be a copy somewhere of Clayman's actually words on the No KO's No Killing Rule or maybe even another full copy of the Ghost Rules.

Would have been easy to call up Clayman and say what we had in mind and that we had an original set of rules, do you mind if we correct this using your typed words?

But we don't have an original set from him.

What I was NOT proposing was a re-edit of everything Ghost Rule wise. There are only a few of us paying attention to this anyway cuz things have slowed somewhat I guess til Thief 3 hits. So I won't use names cuz it can only be Peter Smith, Old Man, Dafydd, and Gumdrop, so don't be mad.

Things in the rules although minor have been changed above, like removing the words "are considered last resorts", those are Claymans words. They can't just be taken out. PLus they are considered last resorts. Something about swimming damage above which wasn't there before. I am not going to detail stuff or make any kind of big list here, is not that important.

I just want to make clear that all I was after was the No Knockouts No Killing s Rule back in it's place, and a corrected typo.
I did not want anything else.

If there was some discussion that happened while I was away from the board and there is not a No KO NO Kill rule anymore, somebody please post me the link so I can go cry over it.

Well we need Claymans original words or either he has to re-write those words or he has to approve someone elses re-write of the words. Ha!

So if it helps, by nefarious means I have come up with the words typed by Claymans own hot fingers on this subject. I have two versions and here they are.

5) No damage to any AI is allowed, whether reflected in the game stats or not. No killings, KO’s, no gas arrows, frogbeast eggs, induced melees, forced suicides of AI, leading AI into traps, drownings, etc. are allowed. If events occur that are questionable and appear to cause apparent damage or alert, but are not reflected in any game stat, assume that a violation has occurred and consult the forum for a ruling.

This rule above might not be the best choice as things were in a state of flux when they were typed. But the meaning is there.

And the second version is next, here ya go.

12.) No knockouts or killings of any kind allowed, whether by blackjack, gas arrows, Hammers, Maces, or any weapons at all,_whether they show up in the stats or not. No induced melees.


What the above is is a direct copy from the Supreme Ghost Rules. Clayman typed that, not myself. We agreed that that rule from Ghost would go into Supreme Ghost. It was re-worded slightly by Clayman but not changed. Is hard to change perfection ya know. Is completely interchangeable with Ghost Mode. And is pretty close to word for word.

All I want are the rules intact as they should be and were. I don't personally require nor am I asking for an edit or rewording of anything else.

However I am not flatly against an edit, just don't see an big need for it. Sometimes changing words doesn't change anything anyway.

On the explainations and details and commentary, I have no trouble with that at all. If it helps someone understand what the rule means or what they don't mean, fine! They just need to fit the spirit of the rules.

But I absolutley think they should be separate from the rules completely. The rules should be listed 1,2,3,4,5, etc concisely. Anything else should be elsewhere.

What I wanted was a simple remedy for something that was missing. Nothing more. I am sticking with that simple request.

So basically it comes down to Clayman. He can re-write or un-write, edit and credit or add and subtract and even approve and disapprove, bless and condemn, etc at his discretion. Heck, I bet he can even multiply and divide!

Whaaat, you think he can't have the LAST word in here if he wants? ;)

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

EDIT: shortened long dashed lines, which made the post too wide, requiring use of horizontal scroll bar to read it.

Sneak
12th Dec 2003, 04:00
ooops, I left out Vanguard cuz we had not seen him around. Hi Vanguard. It's all your fault ya know! :)

Peter_Smith
12th Dec 2003, 06:13
Sneak,

Your comments are not so easy to follow, and it is not clear to me what you really want. I invite you to propose a complete set of rules and clarifications yourself or persuade Clayman to do it. Then I will see what you have in mind.

FYI, I did not knowingly remove any words of Clayman's in my original rendition, which you may find in the third post of this thread. This is the only rendition I myself have written. I was very careful to leave Clayman's original wording intact, only adding a few nececessary phrases to correct omissions and a few examples. The words "last resorts," etc., are all in there. You can trace it by comparing the second and third post.

Any changes to the detailed wording are a result of Dafydd's editing, which I have not examined in detail. I was agreeing with Daffyd's format, which I like, not with all his words, which I did not comment on. I concur with you that some things have been left out and changed in his rendition, and these need to be corrected. If I were to write the the final version of the clarified rules, then all these things would be put back more or less the way I had them, but organized in Dafydd's format.

I think I captured the basic rules faithfully in the third post, apart from a few additional amendments which are only examples and clarifications. If not, then please comment on that post in particular.

Your real issue seems to be the amendments or examples. I do not agree that there should be no examples. These and similar examples have been written in this forum in the past to help people who did not understand the the basic rules. They should be helpful in the future. Descriptions of alerts, etc. are helpful. What is wrong with that?

Sneak, you say that what you wanted was for me to satisfy your request, and you were "sticking to it." Isn't that a little presumptuous? Believe it or not, I was trying to do something helpful on my own, not just to satisfy your request. If you really wanted only to satisfy your request, then doing it yourself would have been simpler, wouldn't it?

If you want me to do so, or if the group fails to offer something better, then I will rewrite my words in Daffyd's format and see how you like that. In the meanwhile, I am going to wait for any further comments or proposed rewrites by others, including yourself. Then I can deal with the whole package rather than fetching one rock at a time.

Sneak
12th Dec 2003, 07:15
If it is not easy to follow then I will make it short n sweet with little commentary.

The reason I brought this up was because there is a rule missing. The No Knockout and No Killing Rule seems to have vanished and I want it back in the formal posted archived Ghost Rules so there won't be any misundestandings about it as there was recently.

There you have it, thats the whole thing for me.

I would like one typo fixed that is confusing but that isn't critical.



The thing about the amendments was all squared away way back there somewhere. Most of those as posted above are not the original amendments. They are commentary or explainatory. They should be in a commentary explainatory topic.

And unless I made a typo somewhere above; which is entirely possible; I said I thought having the commentary or explainations thing was a good idea. I just don't want it added in with each rule in the formal rules. The rules should be presented by themselves as concisely as possible with interpretations or commentary or explainations coming later. Like below the rules or on the next post after the rules, or whatever. But not included with the rules.

I don't have any edits to propose. I don't have much of an opinion on edits or whathaveyou right now. I can certainly appreciate the creativity and thought that went into what was presented above.

But what I am really focused on here is simply the Missing Ghost Rule!

Peter_Smith
12th Dec 2003, 08:02
Well, then, Sneak, it apears that we are in violent agreement.:) What Dafydd's format was intended to accomplish is exactly what you want. Concise rules and separate examples. So, eventually, I will write it up that way. I am waiting only for Clayman to comment one way or another, and then I will propose the final draft.

It will be self contained in a separate thread finally posted.

dafydd
12th Dec 2003, 12:34
[Folks]

Yeesh. I only removed the words "last resort" because, in terms of game rules, the phrase is meaningless: it's like saying you should steal the loot in an artistically pleasing way.

Who's to say what is a last resort? Peter robbed the church moneybox without using any potions; I used an invisibility potion. Would that make my robbing of the moneybox a ghost bust, because it's possible to do it without using a potion? What if Peter also used a potion -- then we would never know whether it could be done without, so we'd never know whether it was the last resort or not.

(And he used an invisibility potion to steal the gold bottles in the pub... but technically, you don't need them to finish -- I didn't bother with then, for example. So is that a ghost bust for Peter?)

The only operative part of the rule was that use of potions must be reported; that is an either-or, yes-no thing: use a potion? You have to report it.

I have no emotional attachment to the way I wrote it; if people want to restore "last resort," go ahead.

Similarly, I tried to organize the rules by the general categories they represented: physical damage, property damage, reporting, &c.

I do take exception to one point: Clayman may have invented the mode, but that doesn't mean his exact words are holy writ that cannot be altered, emended, or rewritten. Just as other people are allowed to play ghost mode, other people are allowed to explain ghost mode. We should reach consensus, since otherwise we have eight or nine different versions, and all is chaos. But Clayman is just one person, albeit the originator of the mode, and everybody else has as much right to propose specific wording as he. (I don't know him, but I suspect he would agree.)

So the mere fact that I rephrased one or two of his rules does not automatically mean my version is blasphemy and should be cast into the outer darkness, where there is much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. (It's not like the Torah, where if you make a single mistake copying it, you have to throw out the entire scroll and start over!)

Anyway, what I think I produced was a draft, which I hoped people would critique, offering changes in wording, ordering, formatting, or whatever else they pleased to suggest. No gnashing of teeth on my end if it's changed completely... I ain't getting paid for this anyway :D .

Dafydd

Sneak
12th Dec 2003, 17:23
Violent agreement? Oh boy, maybe I should change my mind or something! HA!

Since they are his I do think the rules should be left to Clayman! Heck in my opinion we should leave them as they are written and just put the missing rule back and untype the typo. I don't desire any rewording or edits to them. But Clayman's thoughts will have to prevail here.

On the commentary stuff, as to who or if or how or what gets written, I will wait and see what the Chief Ghost has to say. I do like the idea however.

The commentary content would be somewhat critical because it will explain to others by example what the rules mean. So they would have to be as correct as the rules.

Dafydd,
Was not jumping ya on the Are considered last resorts thing. But I disagree! Actually doing a Straight Ghost is the First Resort, everything else comes as a last resort if you can't do a Straight Ghost of the mission. Potions and Sugar in the engine techniques are last resorts. You should only use them if you can't find another way. You can Ghost anything with an inviso potion, takes no effort at all. The Golden Child in LotP can be smoked right by in seconds with an inviso. I agree with Claymans wording here wholeheartedly.

I may either invented or been a part of inventing most of the Sugar in the Ghost Engine techniques but I have to tell you they are borderline if not a tad over the edge. Just like using inviso. But if nothing else works, we at least have a LAST RESORT option to Ghost the thing. I think the Turret Room in Soulforge is going to have to be Sugar Coated if it can even be won that way. So be it! We have tried about everything else first in there in the last couple of years.

But the point I was making however, Clayman invented Ghost and so far they are his rules. Things can't just be taken out of the rules based on opinion. He has to do it or agree to it. Nothing can even be voted in unless he puts it to a vote. And that is a good thing because he take Ghost to heart.

Would be the same if they were your rules.


If all you were doing was making a suggestion, then I am with you. Suggestions are good things most times. :) And you have some great stuff up there.

I am always careful of what gets changed or whittled away at. Over at TTLG things Ghostwise have been watered down over time a lot rule wise. There are people over there Ghosting Missions in Hard Skill and call it a success or calling a mission a success when they did not Ghost a spot. And other stuff. I guess it is better though that they are Ghosting some way than no way!

So it is really up to us to Maintain what Ghost really is so there is a real reference point. Hey, it's a job! ;)

Sneak
12th Dec 2003, 19:02
By Dafydd,

"I do take exception to one point: Clayman may have invented the mode, but that doesn't mean his exact words are holy writ that cannot be altered, emended, or rewritten."

Somehow the wording of that went right on by me but I finally caught it. And it has brought a smile to my face and lightened up my day. ;) I am just tickled to death.

I do wish Mr. Holy Writ himself would saunter in with chilled glass and Gavel something. Gavel an inviso potion or gavel all my Sugar in the Engine items into oblivion, or gavel Vanguard cause it's been a while, or gavel Peter's Winkie or gavel Old Man for anything that strikes him on the spur of the moment, or gavel Gumdrop cuz he is well over due! Or heck, Gavel Dafydd cuz he is as of yet, uninitiated! :) Or better yet, don't gavel anything, just say Hi How Are Ya and leave us wondering what it was all about! Or better better yet, don't show up at all and we will just all get old and die and the problem will be left to our children to solve. :D

I am jesting here obviously as I do believe those gaveling days are over but still in reserve in case a Despot tries to usurp the Throne. :)

Dafydd,
Once the rules are written, the Prime Archived set are chiseled in stone by Moses. They are not arbitrarily changed or re-written. It takes either Clayman to change them or OK the change. It is not a big deal as long as they are true to form and spirit. But as far as explaining them, any knowledgeable Ghoster can do that. We have to be a bit careful though!

You missed some three years worth of heated debates on Ghost Mode based in part on explanations or interpretations or desires or legalism concerning the rules. If anyone or any group could have just re-written the thing without an OK, we would not have what we have at all. We would have a real mess. Multiple sets of rules cus some would not have played by the new ones. And that almost happened at one point. Ghost was on it's way to be well watered down with every mission being able to be completed to Success and the manor possibly left with bashed doors and cut banners and alerts in various places. In fact in my opinion, Ghost almost died.

As it is now Clayman has to agree or OK it, thats not a matter of interpretation or opinion, thats the way it is.

The guy is probably pretty busy. Bet he will have a peek at all this eventually. So hang loose, you might enjoy it!

dafydd
12th Dec 2003, 21:23
[Sneak]


Was not jumping ya on the Are considered last resorts thing. But I disagree! Actually doing a Straight Ghost is the First Resort, everything else comes as a last resort if you can't do a Straight Ghost of the mission. Potions and Sugar in the engine techniques are last resorts. You should only use them if you can't find another way. You can Ghost anything with an inviso potion, takes no effort at all. The Golden Child in LotP can be smoked right by in seconds with an inviso. I agree with Claymans wording here wholeheartedly.

But they are automatically last resorts in a well-designed FM, because you don't generally have more than one or at most two invisibility potions to begin with. Thus, you hoard them; most of the time, I end up with as many potions as I started with, because I'm always afraid to use them, worrying that something much worse is just around the corner.

And as far as what you call the "sugar in the engine" techniques... you of all people know how hard, tedious, and just plain aggravating it is to try to nudge some guard twenty feet down a corridor and into another room! And as to banner transmigration, I've never even attempted it, it sounds so difficult. (And how often do you find a banner you must pass conveniently located below a wooden ceiling when you have a rope arrow in your inventory?)

Believe me, anybody interested in ghosting is going to try everything else before either blowing his only inviso potion or trying a long nudge while ducking back every twenty seconds to avoid a patroller. When I played around with nudging the guard near the Flesh Transmutation Machine (in Karras' Diary), I reported as follows:


I have an idea about that, in case anyone is interested in trying: if you douse the torch near the standing guard, it might be dark enough to slowly, gingerly nudge her farther and farther away from the machine. It would be tricky, as she spins a lot -- and you'd have to back away before she spun to avoid detection, I think.

But if you conducted a long dance of {nudge, back away, save}, I suspect you could get her quite a distance.

Hm. I just tried it, and it's easier than I thought; she moves pretty quickly... and when you're pressed up against her north side, she won't turn north to face you. You'll still get popped if she's sideways to you and you're too off-center towards the direction she's looking; but if you're patient, you can do it. I managed to nudge her half way down the river.

What I didn't mention was that this took me about fifteen minutes of gametime, but forty-five minutes to an hour of real time! And I had to reload about twenty times, when she would turn and I would be caught in her peripheral vision. You're just not going to use nudging or banner transmigration if you can possibly avoid it.

And the person who burns his invisibility and slowfall potions just to avoid a patroller who can be timed and sneaked isn't going to ghost many missions, is he? Because he'll quickly run out of such crutches... and since he won't have honed his sneaking skills, once the potions are gone, he's history.

Ghosting is really hard. Few people do it. It's much more satisfying to the typical player with his short attention span to KO everybody in the joint, and most of us first started that way before discovering ghost mode. Only die-hards play it; and the die hards feel more satisfaction doing it completely clean anyway -- they don't need to be told to do so :D !

(As I mentioned in a long post over on TtLG that nobody ever responded to, when you play ghost mode you actually play every other kind of mode, too... because you often have to save your game, go into blackjack-everybody mode, and scout out the next section to see what you must do; then you restore your game and play on in ghost mode. And of course ghosting often requires you to take a circuitous route, rather than the obvious line, so you get to play tourist mode as well!)

That's my long-winded way of saying that I thought the phrase "last resort" was unnecessary because anyone who plays ghost mode in the first place is automatically of the sensibility to avoid potions and abuse of the Dark engine -- except as a last resort. It's like telling free-climbers going up Half Dome that they should only hang on their ropes as a "last resort": if they were that kind of people, they'd be home watching TV anyway!


If anyone or any group could have just re-written the thing without an OK, we would not have what we have at all. We would have a real mess. Multiple sets of rules cus some would not have played by the new ones.

Sneak, there's a gigantic excluded middle between saying that Clayman must approve each and every change in the wording and saying that everyone can just rewrite and change the rules and call it a ghost: the key is not a ruling from one person but rather the consensus of the group of ghosters... even including the "unintiated," such as me.

First, I changed no rules whatsoever; note that the "no kill, no KO" rule, the one you were most distressed about when you realized it was missing from the archived version, is right there, number three. I restored it in my draft. Here is how I phrased it:


3) Consciousness: No knockouts or kills of any kind are allowed, by any means whatsoever (including gas, hammers, and maces), whether or not they show up in the final stats, unless they are explicitly required by a mission objective. When such objectives are met, they must not alert any other AI.

That seemed pretty definitive to me.

But my version is meaningless until and unless there is actual consensus among the Council of the Five at least (including you but not including me). It is the need for that consensus that prevents the rules from getting all higgledy-piggledy.

But none of this means that Clayman and only Clayman can write a version of the rules. It's not patented; he may have invented the style, but there is now an entire (though small) community of ghosters. And it is the group consensus that defines not only the wording but the very rules themselves.

We are the keepers of the ghost mode; we, all of us. Clayman is the most senior and respected member of that "we," but he is not the entirety.

Dafydd

clayman
13th Dec 2003, 01:06
I have read the entire thread (most entertaining!) and started over and read down to dafydd's re-tooling of the rules on page 1, but must now drop a comment or two in, or I will burst or spontaneously combust.

1) All of this blather about "Clayman must bless any changes" is very complementary, given the fact that if I hadn't taken the time to post a lightbulb idea 4 years ago, you might not be in this crappy mare's nest today, and would be blithely blackjacking everyone in sight and hooting in delight. :D But dafydd is really correct - one man doth not rule this issue. The consensus approach is the best course (although, I'm Ok with the Council of Five or whatever Lord of the Rings tone you put to it, but what about Deadfall and all the rest of the Ghosters?), with my vote counting as one like everyone else's. OK, if you want to give me 2 to your 1 each, I'll concede to that. ;)

2) These rules were never written to be taken near as seriously as they have been. It seems that every 6 months or so we must debate them, whether they need to be or not. So if you are going to make them a document for all of posterity to consider along with the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, please take out little anecdotal commments I made like "It's Ok...live a little" and the entire rule #8, which is really side commentary and doesn't add value.

3) And just for the record, I have no desire to see Peter's winkie. :D

That said, I will add the following, then read on and add my additional comments in a separate thread if needed.

(drumroll, out of rhythym)

To me there is only two modes of Ghosting : Fun Ghost and Abstract Ghost. For those of you who tolerated 4000+ posts from me on the other forum, you probably remember me calling them something else at some point in time, but please bear with me, that's hundreds of martinis ago.

Fun Ghost is what you all are debating now. And, except for the few changes I noted above, I am OK with you re-wording Fun Ghost to read however you like. Play as you will. However, I do not like the 39 versions of clarification inserted into the rules, as they quickly get out of date with every new mission release. We can make exceptions and clarifications until armageddon. And, has anyone considered that T3 will likely turn this whole topic on its head ? Don't work yourself to death refining a process that will be likely changed 3 months from now.

To explain the difference between Fun Ghost and Abstract Ghost, allow me to reprint a section of a post I made in another thread, where I made Andy Rooney-ish commentary about the concept of Ghost :

The original intent of Ghost Mode (all old timers now let out a collective sigh at this point), was simply to invent a method of play that portrayed the following scenario :

(Garrett to himself afterwards) "I am a professional Thief. No one must ever see me get in or out, there must be no witnesses, my face must not be seen. I am invisible to the world. Otherwise my being able to be profitable in this profession will be short-lived. If I harm or kill anyone, or leave evidence that I passed through, I will eventually be caught.

On this job, I got in and out clean. No one knew I was ever there. I didn't harm anyone, disturb anything, I left no evidence that I was there. When the Master returns to the castle, and asks the dumbfounded guards what the hell happened, where is all my stuff, the guards reply, "I dunno. It musta been a Ghost."

All the Rules point toward that end. All the debates and compromises since, three years and counting, have tried to drive the Rules away from that concept. And the intent to drive the Rules away has been hinged upon the concept of failure, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. There seems to be a problem among many Ghosters that most of the missions are not Ghostable, thus a need to change the rules to make the % of success greater. Reality check : there is much disappointment in life, get used to it.

Some designers have intentionally created missions that have environments, objectives, and required gameplay styles that force a Ghost to break the rules. Fine. the player just cracks his knuckles and dusts off his blackjack and sword.

In others, designers have placed a cruely placed single stumbling block, a puzzle or scenario in the mission where a Ghoster is seemingly presented with a single solution that breaks the "Rules". Fine. the player tries, and if he fails, he hauls out that blackjack and sword again. No problem.

I never created Ghosting to be a winning enterprise, only an exception to the general and boring Thief gameplay rule of the following : break in, knock out, poke around, get loot, kill if backed into a corner, run and alert everyone if forced to, tear up 5h1t if it gets in your way, achieve objectives, dust off hands in satisfaction, finish mission, move on to next (yawn) challenge. I only wanted it to be Olympian in measure : you try mightly, but still may fail to win a medal by a fraction of a second, by missing just one little thing, or goofing up just a tad. An arbitrary set of rules to test yourself against, and if you fail, it's not the end of the world. That makes it a bit more significant as a style of play. And that makes it much more significant as an achievement for those of you (over a dozen Ghosting accomplishment threads and counting, including the old forum) who can say : "I am a Ghost."


IM(highly opinionated)HO, the only rules that satisfy that concept are the rules below, reprinted from a hotly contested thread from many moons ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth. They are absolute and inflexible as to the whims, conditions, amendments, interpretations, debates, protestations and whining of failed Ghost attempts. They are the field boss who stands over you as you work, beating you about the shoulders with a whip as you hopelessly do your best. Read :

**************

Ghost Rules – The Simple Man’s Version

1.) All of the pre-accepted rules, except there are no exceptions. :D

.
.
.
.
.
.
As in : no alerts, period. No BJ’s, period. No kills, period. Mission objectives now have no relevance. You must finish the mission without violating any of the rules. If you must violate a rule to finish, to complete an objective, to continue….then you are BUSTED. No exceptions.

That means no crate/door breaking, no killing AI if the mission objectives demand it, no knocking out of AI and carting them to other places, nothing.

A Ghost is not seen, not heard. He/She doesn’t kill, doesn’t alert, doesn’t BJ, doesn’t gas arrow, doesn’t initiate any action that directly results in another AI’s death, injury or alert.

This is radical, I admit it. “Undercover”……”Return to the Cathedral”………”Running Interference”………all are now un-Ghostable. There are a thousand more that I haven’t mentioned that now get moved to that “failure” category. So be it. Some can be done, some can’t. But there will be little debate in the future, right ?
.
.
.
.
Any objections ?

*******************

This assumes that the real Ghost Rules sit outside the mission design, the mission objectives, hell, even the game itself. You go in with a mindset that you are playing this game a certain way, and if the game does not accomodate; well, you revert to another style of play, or play in some kinda ghost mode in as many sections as possible, or just kill'em all and let your diety sort'em out, it doesn't matter, you failed one very narrow and precise method of playing the game. Big deal. Quit worrying about failing at something that only you know about. You don't have to tell us about it.

These rules stand firm. Re-word them as you like. But they are distinctly different than the Fun Ghost that you all are struggling with.

My $0.02, worth only $0.015936 after inflation. :)

Peter_Smith
13th Dec 2003, 05:07
Clayman,

Thank you very much for your comments. I can see a direction forward, but it is still a little murky, and I would like your further comments on the following.

It seems that we can finish off the fun ghost with a few minor corrections as you point out. However, at the end you say that you would really prefer to adopt some sticter rules. In my opinion, to adopt the stricter rules as a replacement for the original rules means no backward compatibility with old ghost reports, and it has the potential to create squabbles, as I will describe below.

I have nothing against stricter rules, if anyone wants to play that way, but I personally do not like revisionist history and retroactive changing of rules. My reasoning is that it is sort of like the law. If a statute is relaxed, we can no longer prosecute current transgressions based on the old statute. If a statute is made more strict, we cannot go back and prosecute people for old behavior under the new law.

I propose, therefore, that we acknowledge three sets of rules and let people play and report results using whatever rule set they like, so long as they make it clear. They would be:

1. Ghost. The original, "fun" rules. The default criteria.

2. Strict Ghost. The rules you now favor. Should be noted.

3. Supreme Ghost. No first alerts and putting everything back the way you found it.

I would like to suggest that people who post success in "Ghost" mode be held to standard #1, the original rules. That way, no past history is invalidated. This is the way I have always played and will continue to play, because for me the name of the game is fun. I like to see all the scripts and meet the objectives.

You and some others may prefer a more purist approach, and that is fine with me. I propose that if anyone choses, they can play and post success in Strict Ghost or Supreme Ghost, and we will know they are operating under a higher standard. They should get more credit for doing it, so long as it matters. Fine with me.

Consider the scenario. Someone posts a Ghost success. Someone else comes along later, plays the mission, notices a fight between AI, and discredits the first poster. The first poster, his reputation besmirched, may want to respond: No, I did not mean to deceive. Or no, I managed to avoid triggering the fight (does it matter, really?). Or, I was playing under the old rules and you are using the Strict interpetation, so my Ghost is still valid. Discussion might ensue as to the date the new rules became official. Etc., etc. I would just as soon avoid ths type of wrangling by eliminating dual definitions of the same term (Ghost).

How would this idea, having three distinguishable categories, sit with you, Clayman?

And how would it sit with the others? Please comment.

If people agree, then I will gather up the three sets of rules and post them for comments.

I agree that in the original fun rules we could simplify the examples a little.

As for getting other past players involved who no longer post here, who wants to volunteer to round them up? The more the merrier up to a point, but I do not want to make a career of this. My only interest is writing down the rules and interpretations in one place and being done with it. I think we all know what those rules are, and it is really pretty simple, or it should be. :)

Peter_Smith
13th Dec 2003, 05:33
Originally posted by Sneak
I am always careful of what gets changed or whittled away at. Over at TTLG things Ghostwise have been watered down over time a lot rule wise. There are people over there Ghosting Missions in Hard Skill and call it a success or calling a mission a success when they did not Ghost a spot. And other stuff. I guess it is better though that they are Ghosting some way than no way!

So it is really up to us to Maintain what Ghost really is so there is a real reference point. Hey, it's a job! ;) Sneak,

You hit the nail on the head! The existence of bastardized modes and improper use of the term Ghost, especially at TTLG, but also occasionally here, is my prime motivation for wanting to write down and clarify these rules, once and for all. Your remarks about gas and missing words only sparked me to do it. I think we really need to codify this well and to set the rules on the altar as the holy scripture (sorry for reverting to that:)) to prevent such misinterpretations. This way, if we see a question or a questionable interpretation, we can simply point out that "It is written." :)

dafydd
13th Dec 2003, 07:25
[Peter]


I think we really need to codify this well and to set the rules on the altar as the holy scripture (sorry for reverting to that) to prevent such misinterpretations. This way, if we see a question or a questionable interpretation, we can simply point out that "It is written."

Hence my desire to ensure that the rules on that altar be as clear and explicit as possible. As I have said, I'm wide open to suggestions how to rephrase any of the rules. In most cases, I simply copied what was there before and reformatted; I snipped out a little bit here and there.

One caveat: I've always loved that "live a little" comment of Clayman's -- I would hate to lose it! :eek:

So Peter, let me get this straight: the only difference between ghost and strict ghost is that with the latter, you can't break the ghost rules even if the objectives require it? (That is, you are busted any way you look at it for such FMs.)

Doesn't that mean the two styles are identical for FMs that don't have objectives that explicitly require kills, KOs, or property damage?

If an FM doesn't require any such busts (Lord Fishkill's Curse), then your ghost is good for either ghost or strict ghost; if the FM implicitly requires such a bust (Ominous Bequest), then you're busted in either ghost or strict ghost.

If the only difference is in certain FMs, then does it really need a separate category? :confused: It seems a little redundant, since we already report such violations.

Does that mean that all the old ghosts of non-bust-requiring FMs can now be re-anointed as strict ghosts? Or do we only report strict ghost attempts for those FMs where it makes a difference -- which would mean we could only report strict ghost failures, never successes!

Not trying to start up an argument, just curious.... :p

Dafydd

Sneak
13th Dec 2003, 07:33
Peter,
Holy Writ in Stone Tablets has always been fine with me! Somebody break out a chisel.

Clayman,
Glad you are complimented since your light bulb idea has given me much fun. :)

Just have always trusted your judgement on this and mostly defer because I want to know what you think. If consensus voting it is, then thats what it is. I have read and heard. Guess the deed is done. Pretty Magnanimous!

Actually you can have 3 votes if you want them, cause I am giving you mine. Never was much into the voting thing. If you don't want it, understandable! I will be happy to give an eye to any changes/edits though.


Well OK, if anyone wants or desires a formal edit or re-write of the rules for any reason, whether to make them more clear or more simple or whatever, sounds like you have the Blessing! Sorry, I just had to say it! And by all means hop on the Commentary. Just please keep it out of the Rules!
All I care about is that the heart of the mode of play and what Ghost is is not changed. I do not think the crew in this Topic wants to fundamentally change Ghost anyway. And thats a compliment from me. :)


Just be aware for future reference that with the vote, Ghost CAN be changed. And with the vote, anyone, anyone at all; whether they really care about Ghost or not, whether or not they have even played a Ghost mission or played a part of a Ghost mission, or played one actual entire Ghost mission; CAN vote on Ghost Ballots! A possible double edged sword! Ahhh the heady weight of Electoral Responsibility!


Personally I preferred the Benevolent Dictatorship Haha! :) But a Dictators Job is Never Done. Guess it gets old!



If anyone wants to get after the Turrets with Old Man and I, get to it. Might bring a big Sack of Sugar though and a keen eye for AI weaknesses. Those 8 guys are brutal and we are sorta at the um...........Last Resort Stage if you know what I mean!

Dafydd,
To respond to your comments on my comments on your comments, I so much as said, no you can't! But come to think of it, yes you can, and maybe you should. In fact, now I think you must! Hope ya really want too! ;)



"Hey Sneak, what became of the missing Ghost Rule. Isn't that where all this started?"

"Oh honestly, I knew what happened to the Rule pretty early on!"

"And what was that!"

"It was removed by an utterly exquisite Ghoster. In fact, the mission was done so skillfully that the rule was gone even before the archives went up. So skillfully and masterfully was it done that no one noticed for maybe better than a year plus that it wasn't even there. Debates raged on all manner of topics Ghostwise and no one noticed the rule was gone. An astounding feat! The best I have ever seen!"

"So do you know who it was that did this amazing thing?"

"Oh yes, I know who it was!"

"Who was it?"

"Out of respect for her skill and art I will never tell."

"So it was a woman?"

"I thought that would get you. But no, it was a male Ghost! And that is as far as I go with the identity."

"Does anyone else know who it was?"

"No one has a clue whatsoever!"

"So I take it there will never be a Ghost Report explaining this incredible performance?"

"I seriously doubt there will ever be one!"

"Well I am in shock! This job is so Professional, I mean anyone who could pull this off and get away with it for so long, the guy should be in charge of it all!"

'Mmmmmmm, no! Being in charge is a ....a....confining thing for lack of better words. When you are in Charge some people want you to tell them what to do and others want to tell you what to do, and others want your authority but none of your responsibility and your time can be demanded for the pettiest things. Can get old and is not compatible with Master Thieving! His career has been successful and he seems now semi retired anyway. He deserves it.!"


"So do you think the stolen rule will be put back in?'

"Undoubtedly, it is a valid rule."

"And then?"

"And then maybe he will steal it again, or steal another rule, or maybe steal some of the new commentary. It is a real challenge to steal from a bunch of Thieves. Might be too much to resist."

"I can't stand it, give me something, a hint of part of the how it was done."

"All I will give you is this, was a distraction extraordinaire. The Supreme moment! A debate with all manners of discussion from door bashing to consensus. And the deed when right by like the etheral mystery it is!"

"Well at least tell me how you know who it was!"

"I know because I have an original copy of that particular set of rules and on that original, the rule in question is also missing!"

"You are kidding! Do you think he knows you know?"

"He just might!"

Night guys!

Peter_Smith
13th Dec 2003, 08:31
Dafydd,

No, the strict rule prohibits any questionable event that could be possibly interpreted as being caused by you, even if you were not seen or heard causing it. Here are some examples. Fights between AI caused by your crossing an area boundary (archers in LOTP) are prohibited according the no-induced-melee rule, even though the participants did not see or hear you. Pulling the switch that floods the room and kills the bugbeasts in The Cistern is prohibited because you flipped the switch and afterwards something appeared to be killed, even though it is just a script or a teleportation, and you did not directly deal any damage. The alert caused by taking the eye in RTC is prohibited because a silent alarm alerted the hammerites, even though they did not actually see or hear you. No alarms of any kind can go off. In short, any debatable exception, even those previously allowed by consensus, is prohibited. Only strict interpretation, and no debates about it. That is my understanding, at least. If I am wrong, I am sure that Clayman will correct me.

I would say that Old ghosts should not be annointed as strict ghosts, except perhaps in idle conversation. I would not change any Ghost reports. What is the point? That is revisionist. The rules did not exist then. New rules should not be applied to old results, in my opinion. It would be a complete waste of time to study the reports, make the distinctions, and edit prior ghost reports. What gets updated and what does not? And why bother?

By "makes a difference," I was a little vague, and it is still not completely clear to me. Anyone can report a strict ghost if they achieve it. However, I think it really makes sense to report it only if there is some way to be tripped up. Using a previous example, you could be tripped up by crossing the boundary of the archer fight in LOTP. So a strict ghost of that mission would avoid that event by not going there. Or, if it were not possible to avoid such an event, you could report a strict ghost to be busted but a ghost to be successful. That information would let the reader know that there was an extra challenge that one either did or did not overcome, as the case may be. Reporting a bunch of strict ghosts for missions in which it does not matter seems to me to be superfluous and gratuitous. :)

I can see that I may have opened a can of worms here, but I don't know how to avoid it without either revising past history or ignoring Clayman's preferred mode, neither of which I like.

Vanguard
13th Dec 2003, 17:36
I missed what was the differentiation between [Fun] Ghost and Abstract/Strict Ghost. Was it that Strict Ghost has no exceptions?

If so, and if you play only Strict Ghost, there are lots of missions in which reading the objectives at the start of the mission will immediately bust the strict ghost and you never even get to play the mission.

If Strict Ghost says:

- no kills
- complete all objectives
- no exceptions rules

If an objective said to kill then the no-kill rule is immediately violated and you can't even start the mission because you know it'll be an automatic bust. That would wipe out an awful lot of fan missions from the repertoire of a Strict Ghoster. At least in what I perceived was Supreme Ghost, which was an extension of Ghost, you could at least play to try to succeed. It wasn't that starting the mission was an automatic bust. For a kill-objective laden FM, you had a chance in Supreme Ghost but you won't in Strict Ghost.

The same argument can be used for the no property rule. If Strict Ghost says:

- no property damage
- complete all objectives
- no exceptions to rules

Then an FM that says to do property damage as an objective is also an automatic bust for a Strict Ghost. Your busted before you even start.

My concept for ghosting is to NOT be forced into failure before you can even start the mission simply because an objective violates a ghost rule. I have to be given the opportunity to at least try to succeed. Objectives should never force a ghost bust. Objectives should be supreme over the rules. Objectives must override the ghost rules.

Under Clayman's italicized story telling scenario of ghosting, Garrett ponders to get out of bed, realizes that the mission cannot be completed because the *mission* is to kill someone, so he pulls up the sheets and snuggles back into bed without ever doing anything at all and surrendering himself to failure without any effort. Sure doesn't sound like the herculean ghosters that I've come to know. Where's the fun in writing up a failed ghost report that says, "Play mode: Ghost - failed due to objective's violation of ghost rule - so never even played it"?

If any mode of ghosting makes its rules override the objectives, there will lots of FMs that become automatically unghostable in that mode. You don't have to play the mission to know whether or not it is ghostable in that mode. You already now it is, so wasting your time in that mission makes you a fool. If you already know the batteries are dead in your remote control, do you still keep hitting its power button in vain and always failed attempts to turn on the television?

Peter_Smith
13th Dec 2003, 20:36
That is all true, Vanguard. That is one reason I don't like the strict mode for myself and why I always play by the original rules. You can do that, too. Nobody is obligated to play the strict way. I think the only issue is whether it should be recognized, and I see no reason to withhold recognition. We have had this debate before. We did not agree then to adopt the strict mode as the official ghosting rule, and that is not being proposed now, as I understand it.

dafydd
13th Dec 2003, 20:50
[Peter]


By "makes a difference," I was a little vague, and it is still not completely clear to me. Anyone can report a strict ghost if they achieve it. However, I think it really makes sense to report it only if there is some way to be tripped up. Using a previous example, you could be tripped up by crossing the boundary of the archer fight in LOTP. So a strict ghost of that mission would avoid that event by not going there. Or, if it were not possible to avoid such an event, you could report a strict ghost to be busted but a ghost to be successful. That information would let the reader know that there was an extra challenge that one either did or did not overcome, as the case may be. Reporting a bunch of strict ghosts for missions in which it does not matter seems to me to be superfluous and gratuitous.

Ah, now I understand where you're going with this: the point of the "strict ghost" mode is precisely in indicating its bust or near bust, for future ghosters to try to succeed where the reporter failed, or to follow in his footsteps to avoid the scripted event or avoid looking at some parchment that would incur the offending objective.

By analogy, it would be like reporting Supreme Ghost (failed); Ghost (success)... that way we would know that you got a first alert somewhere or couldn't put something back (you would, one presumes, report what caused the failure), and a later ghoster might try to find a way to get around that difficulty.

So someone might report a ghost success but a failed strict-ghost in Mixed Messages; at the beginning, when you move close, two guards start to argue over where a pub is and one kills the other. Thus, the next ghoster might try moving sideways far enough that he never triggers that conversation, thus achieving his strict ghost.

Or in Forgotten Forest Part 1, you can report a failed strict ghost because you looked at the inscription in Constance's tomb, which triggers first the objective to spawn a zombie, then the objective to kill the zombie you just spawned. So a strict ghost of FF1 would require you not to look at that inscription, while a fun ghost would allow you to go through that whole process of creation-destruction in true Shiva-Kali style.

Vanguard is correct that there are some missions that cannot, by their very nature, be abstract-ghosted. BUT -- there are also missions that can be fun-ghosted and, with rather more effort, can also be abstract-ghosted (the two examples above might qualify); so it may be worth trying for an abstract ghost, since in these cases, you don't know in advance that you will fail.

There are also missions where a fun ghost is automatically an abstract ghost as well; abstract ghost should not be reported in these cases... only where there is something that distinguishes the fun from the abstract, something you can avoid or that the reporter suspects can be avoided, even if he personally couldn't pull it off... such as the archer battle in Life of the Party or looking at Constance's tomb inscription in FF1.

Do I have it correct now? Vanguard, does this make more sense?

Dafydd

Vanguard
13th Dec 2003, 21:50
The other problem with Strict Ghost (or any ghost mode) is in ever requiring that the player must know how the author designed the FM. The player should never have to know how the mission was designed. Getting too close to the archers in LOTP is a scripted event set off by a boundary trigger. The player shouldn't have to know that. Simple: Look around, and do you actually *see* anything that could've triggered the melee? The teleport to a different map in Cistern where the bugbeasts end up killed is also not something a player should be aware (and it wasn't until the author joined in then did any of us arguing at that point know that teleporting to another map was the trick used).

The player should not have to know what caused an event if it was something completely separate of the *perceived* actions by Garrett. If *Garrett* didn't do it then, well, he didn't do it. The scripting is just the author's way of ensuring you get to see their efforts in setting up the event. Otherwise, you could be off somewhere else and never experience all of the author's work. In Hallucinations, you get to hear the rant by the wife at her drunken husband. Is that an alert? No, but it is scripted and it does cause a change in the *****y AI to start her ranting. Imagine if that weren't scripted. It would be a rare pleasure by the player to ever encounter that event if it were timed instead of triggered (and scripts can be timed, too, like the gate closing that you must get beyond). Of course, saying that a script can't be triggered also means timed scripts aren't allowed, not just boundary triggered scripts. That means you can't even start the game without the timed script occuring, like a bunch of AIs going to war at some preset interval after you start the mission, as in Insurrection where the Hammerites wander in over the bridge to fight the Mechanists.

As the *player* of an FM, you aren't required to understand how the FM was designed. And if you do, you should actually be required to ignore it as a cause of a ghost bust. If you approach while completely hidden and never detected upon 2 AIs that then kill each other, well, it wasn't you that killed them, was it -- because you don't know about scripts whether boundary triggered or timed, right? Lots of people use cameras without a clue as to how the lens(es) work, the chemical constitution of the film, the construction of the battery, how the windings are wound within the motor, what type of metal is used in the contacts for the switches, etc. That doesn't stop them from being expert photo takers. We don't want to be moving the players *into* the game engine and out of the *game* in order to play in ghost mode. At no point should the ghoster even be offered the choice of taking the red or blue pill ("Matrix" reference). The player is *always* inside the matrix and hasn't a clue on how anything outside the matrix makes it work.

If we're going to require players to understand how the game engine works and how the author designed the FM, well, then why not let those ghosters become dromeders, an even greater feat, and simply bypass those effects? A ghoster should not and must not play with game-God knowledge. You're playing within the reality that the game creates, so don't keep trying to play outside that reality. Otherwise, you're not playing the same game as the rest of the non-ghosters, so your ghosting is irrelevant. You're trying to ghost the *same* mission in the *same* reality as all the other players who couldn't ghost it or didn't even try (i.e., they had more fun than us ghosters).

dafydd
14th Dec 2003, 00:18
[Vanguard]

Your points are all well taken, and in fun-ghost, everyone here (including Clayman and Sneak) seems already to agree that you can trigger scripts and satisfy objectives that would otherwise bust a ghost.

I think Clayman wants to create a "new" mode (which may have been his original conception of ghost, but like blue-green algae, it evolved), abstract-ghost, in which you *do* require the player to dip into the game mechanics and the mission design.

(Note that we already play about the edges of this in regular fun-ghost... there is no corollary to "nudging" or "banner transmigration" in the Garrett world!)

So we have the good, old fun-ghost mode (just called "ghost" for convenience) that we all know and love; then, for those really, really, really into sussing out the mission design and thwarting the cool stuff that the author intended (after first enjoying it, one hopes!), we have abstract-ghost, a.k.a. strict ghost. Which mode does require knowledge of the mission as a computer game, with all the quirks of the Dark engine and all the particulars of the mission design printed out for Garrett to look at.

Finally, for players really, really, really into the "I was never seen or even momentarily suspected" philosophy, we have supreme ghost, with no first alerts, no killing of lights, no equipment store (for those paltry few FMs that even offer an equipment store anymore :mad: ), and no moving of things about the place except into your pocketses.

Three modes; three styles of play. I myself will normally stick with fun-ghost, since I play this game to have fun, and only occasionally make a forray into strict ghost when there's a real challenge to be had, like getting past the archer battle in LotP -- not, as in the case of Forgotten Forest pt. 1, where the only "challenge" is to restrain yourself from reading a tomb inscription :D .

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
14th Dec 2003, 00:22
I am not going to get started debating that perception business again. That went on forever in the Cistern thread, and it led nowhere. I will say one thing and then hope to be silent, if I can resist the temptation.:)

I think that if you don't want to address the question of whether you caused the melee (or other event), then you can play strict ghost and say your were busted by the event itself. In the abstract sense, you cause everything just by playing the game. If you want to address the question and claim that you could not have caused it inside your game world, then you can play original ghost, report the incident, and say you succeeded. It makes no difference to me either way. :)

clayman
14th Dec 2003, 01:34
Wow, this has gotten heavy.

I never bought into the Supreme Ghost concept, or maybe I missed the memo. It's too in love with how the game works, i.e. first alerts. From a realistic standpoint, I am a thief-for-a-living view, who cares ? I met the criteria of my little Garrett-mulling-over-his-success scenario, so does it matter ? I think not.

daffyd in his assumption above assumes too much technical know-how on my part. I did not develop this supposed Strict Ghost mode because I delve deeply into the bowels of DromEd and see all the technical particulars of how a mission was designed. I am honestly and clean-consciously Dromed ignorant, except in how to open and beta-test a potential mission. So this "Strict" mode of play is based purely on me projecting myself into Garrett's shoes, and playing to stay alive and profitable. Nothing more or less.

Solution : Rename "Fun Ghost" to "Original Ghost" or "Basic Ghost". Settle your rules how you see fit. Say good riddance to clayman until he circles back at the beginning of T3. And play the game however it damn well suits you. But I still think that if you play Assassins with the Garrett mindset I have described above, you will see why I think that Fun/Basic/Original Ghost is just the beginning; you must move on to Strict to make the gameplay options clearer. :)

btw, Sneak - Thanks for the support.....I would love to stay and be the Benevolent Dictator. Do you think the rest of the populace here would be able to bear it ? :D

Peter_Smith
14th Dec 2003, 02:37
Originally posted by clayman
Say good riddance to clayman until he circles back at the beginning of T3. And play the game however it damn well suits you. But I still think that if you play Assassins with the Garrett mindset I have described above, you will see why I think that Fun/Basic/Original Ghost is just the beginning; you must move on to Strict to make the gameplay options clearer. :)

btw, Sneak - Thanks for the support.....I would love to stay and be the Benevolent Dictator. Do you think the rest of the populace here would be able to bear it ? :D

Thanks clayman. I really hope you are not disappearing until T3. Who knows how long that will be? Your curmudgeonly discourse is always welcome.:);) I think we all like to have the insight and blessings of the ghost creator, even if some would argue with the form of government. It is so simple, really, to just ask clayman rather than endure pages of debate.

Assassins does illustrate the concept of what a strict ghost is like, as there are no artificial events to consider and no strange techniques are needed. Still, the mission must "let" you do it. Where the mission is not so cooperative, I think there is still some ghosting fun to be had. Assassins is also ripe for Supreme. I have tried Supreme but not totally bought into it myself because is a little too fussy for my taste. Returning keys and relocking doors goes against the grain for this thief.

Cheers. :)

Sneak
15th Dec 2003, 21:28
Have been re reading a bit. Quiet in here!

Am wondering now if I am picking up on something that I have been wondering for a while. Hmm!

Vanguard,
You seem to have a similar thought. Hmm! Have a question for you! If Ghost had been from the beginning what we see as Strict Ghost above, would it have been as appealing to you as Ghost has.

Heck,
Everyone answer that question. Please!

I don't know how to say exactly what I am thinking but suffice it to say that I don't at this point see Strict Ghost as a natural progression.

Should we also have a Strict Supreme Ghost? Actually that is not a question I really want answered. I am just making a very feeble attempt at pointing out something. I know I am being vague.

Peter_Smith
17th Dec 2003, 02:22
Originally posted by Sneak
Should we also have a Strict Supreme Ghost? Actually that is not a question I really want answered. I am just making a very feeble attempt at pointing out something. I know I am being vague. You said it, Sneak, but now that you mention it, you are waffling again.:D Can you force yourself to just come out and say it, clearly?

The three modes are not intended to be a logical progression. They are simply three ways that people play. Original and strict are certainly a logical progression. Strict is just original with no lax interpretations. Supreme has some of one, some of the other, and some additional features. Would you prefer that we omit Supreme to be logical? I think it is a non-issue myself.

dafydd
17th Dec 2003, 02:41
[Peter]

I think Sneak's question deserves an answer, for I think he has put his finger on something: no, if the ghost rules were what we are calling strict or abstract ghost from the first time I saw them, I would not be all that interested... because I would have thought them odd and unfair.

You don't always know going in that an FM is going to have objectives that will bust your ghost. And I think I would be very discouraged if I got three hours into one, ghosting all the way, the end is in sight -- and suddenly, I'm told to kill so-and-so, and I realize it's all over. (I know I feel that way now when an objective implicitly requires a ghost bust, but that's not as common as the explicit version.)

When I feel helpless to complete a mission in ghost mode, I lose interest in playing ghost mode altogether for a while. The more it happened, the less interested I would be in general.

So I'm glad the "lax interpretations" (as you phrased it) were there, so I could have enough early successes to be encouraged.

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
17th Dec 2003, 03:15
I agree with you, Dafydd. The strict mode is there mainly because clayman prefers it, and in deferance to the Ghost Creator, I think it should be mentioned.

EDIT. I did not see the real question (addressed to Vanguard).

My answer to that is to agree with Dafydd. I hate to learn that something is impossible (after investing time and effort) owing to an objective popping up or a script that is part of the game, not a result of the ghoster's play. In fact, that feeling by the majority of ghosters is the reason why the exceptions were granted in the first place. I think there is a difference between that situation and a normal, unavoidable bust. In the normal bust, you find out that the intent cannot be satisfied. That can always happen. In the objective or script bust, you have satisfied the intent, and you are busted not by your lack of skill or ingenuity but by a quirk in the game.

Anyway, regardless of the psychological reason, one would annoy me and the other does not.

Sneak
17th Dec 2003, 04:28
Oh Peter,
Dafydd is right, I did ask a question. You were too busy drooling over my Gormet Waffles and Syrup to see it. :) Here is a cut n paste.

"Vanguard,
You seem to have a similar thought. Hmm! Have a question for you! If Ghost had been from the beginning what we see as Strict Ghost above, would it have been as appealing to you as Ghost has.

Heck,
Everyone answer that question. Please! "

And there ya have it. Maybe you missed the question because I failed to put a question mark at the end of it. ;)

Thanks for the answer Dafydd,
I had to ask myself the same question. And the truth is that it is possible that I don't know for sure since it did not happen that way. But knowing me, I probably would have played it some, had some fun with it, said hey thats kinda neat, and then gone back to Full Time Head Banging!

I probably would not have become the Hard Core Ghoster I am when I Ghost. And honestly, in the long haul, Ghost might not have taken off as a Mode of play like many other haven't. It may have just stalled after the initial Ghost Run, and that might have been it for the most part. Who knows.


Peter,
OH Boy, I get to Hammer Ya, in a minor way! ;) Read the words of Clayman from an above post on Strict Ghost!

"But I still think that if you play Assassins with the Garrett mindset I have described above, you will see why I think that Fun/Basic/Original Ghost is just the beginning; you must move on to Strict to make the gameplay options clearer."

End of Claymans comment.

That sounds like a progression to me!

OK I will come out with it, I just wanted everyone to think what they would have thought if Strict had been Ghost at the beginning. That way you would understand my prespective. And it may not matter to you anyway.


Here is exactly what I see.

Unless I am completely out of my gourd here, There is no difference at all between Strict Ghost and Original Ghost. In fact, when Ghost first arrived years ago that day after Clayman suggested it and a bunch of us agreed to try it, Strict/Original Ghost was exactly what was placed on the table.

This was before the first Ghost Run where we found the troubles and catches and things that were then amended and tweaked in the rules.

Strict is not a follow on to Ghost, it is where it started. The only difference is that the words "No Exceptions" have been added to the rules to clear up the GArret Mindset. And anyone who has been around knows exactly what the "No Exceptions" will do! Is pretty Clear!

Also in my view, at the core of Strict Ghost and what has been called above Fun Ghost, it takes no more skill to play one that the other. So there is no skill progression here. It is no harder to do at all. Maybe a few different challenges arise in one as opposed to the other such as, getting around the archer show in LotP for Strict or getting the Eye in RTC without being seen or heard in Fun.

So there you have my thoughts. Am not suggesting that Strict has no place. Is anyone seeing what I am pointing out here or do you agree/disagree?

I am going to play Assassins by Strict Ghost just as Clayman suggested. I will comment more after that.

But I will say this. Renaming Ghost Thief Mode to Original or anything else I do not like. It is what it is now and for the most part everyone knows what it is. It is the Ghost Mode that everyone knows!


No I do not want a Strict Supreme Ghost. But if Strict Original Ghost has taken off as it was, then maybe we would have a Strict Supreme Ghost. And no I don't want to Omit Supreme Ghost cuz Strictly speaking it is a logical follow on! :D

Now eat your waffles! Haha! :)

Sneak
17th Dec 2003, 04:42
Originally posted by clayman
btw, Sneak - Thanks for the support.....I would love to stay and be the Benevolent Dictator. Do you think the rest of the populace here would be able to bear it ? :D

Clayman,
You are Welcome for the support. And most certainly the populace could bear it. Especially considering how Benevolent you have been. But for sure send the Board Curmudgen back in! :D

Peter_Smith
17th Dec 2003, 05:00
Originally posted by Sneak
And there ya have it. Maybe you missed the question because I failed to put a question mark at the end of it. ;)Yes, I missed it. Our posts crossed. I corrected my response above while you were writing your response.

Peter,
OH Boy, I get to Hammer Ya, in a minor way! ;) Read the words of Clayman from an above post on Strict Ghost!

"But I still think that if you play Assassins with the Garrett mindset I have described above, you will see why I think that Fun/Basic/Original Ghost is just the beginning; you must move on to Strict to make the gameplay options clearer."

End of Claymans comment.

That sounds like a progression to me!I think you did not read what I wrote, Sneak. I said above that there was a progression from Original to Strict. I also said there was not a progression from either one to Supreme, that Supreme was basically a mixed bag.
So there you have my thoughts. Am not suggesting that Strict has no place. Is anyone seeing what I am pointing out here or do you agree/disagree?I understand the relationship and the origins, and I agree with you on that. Sorry, I am not sure what your point is relative to the rules we are writing. Do you have a suggestion relative to the rules?
I am going to play Assassins by Strict Ghost just as Clayman suggested. I will comment more after that.There is no difference in game play between Original and Strict in Assassins, so you cannot play it again under "different" rules and learn anything from it. I covered that before too.
But I will say this. Renaming Ghost Thief Mode to Original or anything else I do not like. It is what it is now and for the most part everyone knows what it is. It is the Ghost Mode that everyone knows! That was not my proposal. Look above. My proposal is Ghost, Strict Ghost, and Supreme Ghost. As copied from above, the three modes I suggested are:

1. Ghost. The original, "fun" rules. The default criteria.

2. Strict Ghost. The rules you now favor. Should be noted.

3. Supreme Ghost. No first alerts and putting everything back the way you found it.

I have been using the term original only to make this discussion easier to follow.
No I do not want a Strict Supreme Ghost. But if Strict Original Ghost has taken off as it was, then maybe we would have a Strict Supreme Ghost. And no I don't want to Omit Supreme Ghost cuz Strictly speaking it is a logical follow on! :D

Now eat your waffles! Haha! :) Thanks Sneak! Sounds good. :)

Peter_Smith
17th Dec 2003, 05:10
Oh I just realized something that may keep us going for another 20 posts! I hate to let it out of the bag, but here goes.:)

I said:
"There is no difference in game play between Original and Strict in Assassins..."

In fact, there is a killing at the beginning! Playing by strict rules, you could argue that Garrett caused it by playing the game, so it is a bust. :D

I dont' think that is really true, but there is little difference in principle between that killing and the archer fight in LoTP. I am just stirring things up. So even with Strict, you need some interpretation ( common sense is more like it).

dafydd
17th Dec 2003, 05:30
[Peter]


I said:
"There is no difference in game play between Original and Strict in Assassins..."

In fact, there is a killing at the beginning! Playing by strict rules, you could argue that Garrett caused it by playing the game, so it is a bust. :D

Uh... that's just what I was going to say. You posted that while I was in reply mode... I only saw it because I scrolled down to get your exact quote from the post before.

So I guess I have nothing to say!

Well, one thing. Clayman said:


But I still think that if you play Assassins with the Garrett mindset I have described above, you will see why I think that Fun/Basic/Original Ghost is just the beginning; you must move on to Strict to make the gameplay options clearer.

Yes, they become very clear indeed. In fact, "they" reduce to a single option: in strict ghost mode, you cannot play Assassins, because as Peter noted (the louse, jumping in just before I could say it!), the moment you get to the whole point of the OM -- the killing of the store guy -- you are automatically busted.

I wonder what Clayman actually meant by that? In his "mindset" analogy, there is no way that Garrett could have known that simply going to a store to buy some equipment was going to embroil him in a homicide. So strictly speaking, he wouldn't have 'pulled the covers over his head and gone back to sleep,' or whatever Clayman said, rather than go on the "mission," because it wasn't a mission.

Doesn't this undercut Clayman's point?

And consider an FM where you only find out you have to kill so-and-so partway through the mission, or where an objective leads to a scripted bust. You started out thinking it would be a simple robbery, but now you have to kill the assassin, or what have you.

How does the "Garrett mindset" whisper prophecy in his ear? I may know (from reading a newsgroup somewhere) that I will, in the course of the mission, generate a new objective to kill, or that I will flip a required switch and a scripted alert will ensue -- but how is Garrett supposed to know that, so that he can pull the covers up and skip it?

The "mindset" principle doesn't work, because it often requires a foreknowledge that Garrett wouldn't have. But the entire strict ghost mode is deduced from the mindset.

So strict ghost doesn't even exist. Strictly speaking, of course.

Its only hope for continuing to slither around the Thief community is to be nothing but a purely abstract game principle, a restriction that makes it harder to "win" the game, because the victory conditions have been expanded to include "no killing or KOs, even if required by objective, and no scripted busts." Perhaps some people find this more fun, and that's a perfectly good reason to have such a mode available. But it's no more logical than regular (fun) ghost; there is no Garrett mindset that forces one and forbids the other.

(Ghost itself flows from a mindset, however: Garrett is a thief, not Conan the barbarian, and he naturally prefers to avoid being seen -- alerts -- leaving traces -- property damage -- or putting himself at risk -- fighting.)

And of course, who says Garrett would never set out to kill someone or break something? He doesn't normally, but I can certainly envision circumstances in which he might: the mission where you have to save some lord from being assassinated -- by killing the killer -- springs to mind, as does the OM where you kidnap Cavador. Garrett has more than one mindset mode available to him.

Dafydd

Vanguard
17th Dec 2003, 06:05
In the rules for Original Ghost (I think just calling it Ghost is okay since the other derivatives add superlative modifiers), we might want to define Strict Ghost mode just to ensure players realize that is NOT what is meant by [Original] Ghost.

I still want to know if the objectives always override the ghost rules. Obviously in Ghost they do. In Strict Ghost, too? I think they override in Supreme Ghost, too, right?

When I first started ghosting, I argued all the time about what was allowed or not, or how to interpret an event to determine if the ghost got busted. That's because the rules are sometimes vague in figuring out what might be allowed by an objective. There's the rational or expected interpretation but that is also influenced by many FMs that were produced long after the rules were defined and which the rules could never realize might happen in FMs. There is often a difference between what is said (or written) and what was meant, and how it can be applied under new and never before expected situations. Eventually I migrated and adopted the opinion that the objectives were explicit: you could do ONLY what the rule specified and nothing further. If an objective said to get a vase and that's all it said then you were not allowed to smash the crate it was stowed within to put it into your inventory, so that FM became automatically unghostable.

So other than specifying that the objectives always override the ghost rules but the objectives are considered explicit then I really didn't have a problem after that. However, it would be rare that an author considers all the ramifications in accomplishing an objective while ghosting, and I don't really want the authors to plan an FM to be ghostable. Ghosting isn't just about being super sneaky. It's also about sometimes accomplishing what was considered impossible.

The only other problem I have with ghosting is in calling a mission ghostable means it is possible to reproduce that effort ... eventually. If something you do is the result of a bug or quirk in the game and you can never replicate it, is that really ghosting? I remember once getting impaled to the wall near the stairs in the museum in Calendra's Legacy. In thrashing about in trying to unstick myself before I got discovered, I happened to somehow pop right through the wall. That was a quirk and I could never repeat it nor was it something that was designed into the mission (as opposed to walls that are sometimes less than what you see). In the same way that the Sudden Heart Attack Syndrome is not considered a ghost bust, I don't think the opposite extreme of a bug lets you circumvent the bust. If you fire a broadhead at an AI with the intention of harming that AI (and that AI is not in an objective to harm or kill) but the arrow passes right through the AI (which sometimes occur), can you really say that your ghost wasn't busted just because a bug let the arrow go through the AI instead of hit it? If it cannot be repeated (regardless of how many tries it takes) then I don't consider it a ghost compleat. Instead it was an accidental ghost salvation. Miracles that save your arse that are part of the reality the author programmed into the FM are okay. Miracles that save your arse due to a bug or quirk are not okay.

Peter_Smith
17th Dec 2003, 06:41
Originally posted by dafydd
[Peter]

Uh... that's just what I was going to say. You posted that while I was in reply mode... I only saw it because I scrolled down to get your exact quote from the post before.

So I guess I have nothing to say!

Well, one thing. Clayman said:

Yes, they become very clear indeed. In fact, "they" reduce to a single option: in strict ghost mode, you cannot play Assassins, because as Peter noted (the louse, jumping in just before I could say it!), the moment you get to the whole point of the OM -- the killing of the store guy -- you are automatically busted.

I wonder what Clayman actually meant by that? In his "mindset" analogy, there is no way that Garrett could have known that simply going to a store to buy some equipment was going to embroil him in a homicide. So strictly speaking, he wouldn't have 'pulled the covers over his head and gone back to sleep,' or whatever Clayman said, rather than go on the "mission," because it wasn't a mission.

Doesn't this undercut Clayman's point?

We have been ghosting Assassins, Supreme even, for years without ever considering that store scene to be a bust. It just never occurred to me before this evening, and I doubt that it occurred to Clayman. I think Clayman's point is about the "purity" of ghosting the rest of the mission, absent that little quirk that he did not consider.

As for the rest of your post, Dafydd, I think you are trying to analyze it too much. It seldom works to dig too deeply, in science or in ghosting.;) It is very simple really. Nobody is aware of your presence, no exceptions (except the killing in Assassins), for objectives, scripts, or otherwise. :)

I do believe, however that the killing in Assassins does undermine clayman's point. It is obvious to me that that event is not a bust according to the original rules (because Garrett did not cause it), but it does get a little murky for the strict rules.

Ah well, that would not deter me from posting the strict rules and letting others argue about the details later. I have a much higher tolerance for imperfection than some of you. :D

Sneak
17th Dec 2003, 07:35
Well Peter,
It seems you are taking my entire post as hammering you. I was only referring to the Natural Progession thing and you changed that. ;) Notice my Winkie!

However we are off a bit here and I don't know how to square it away. Will try. And I may just pull that other post of mine down because it didn't go where I thought.

OK,
Clayman sees a progession from Ghost to Strict apparently by his comment I quoted above unless I am reading it wrong. Seems you do also. I DO NOT see a Progression. I see Strict as the Original, where Thief started but nailed closed with No Exceptions.

I have no suggestions relative to writing the rules because we are not writing any. Editing is what I understood is being done. The missing rule is my main purpose.

I was not referring to anything you had posted when I talked about not renaming Ghost. I put that because Clayman made it a suggestion. I don't agree with the suggestion.

Supreme does follow Ghost and was written to follow it. Supreme Ghost plays to the game demands, ie Objectives, just like Ghost does. Strict does not, it plays outside them.

As far as suggestions, There is a lot up there to re read and I am just not going to do it.

Strict Ghost for lack of a better name at Present is the original Ghost in my mind. And maybe that is how it should be presented in some fashion. Where Ghost started, before the debates, and with the Rules Nailed in Stone so it can't ever change. Here are the words of Clayman from above:

"These rules stand firm. Re-word them as you like. But they are distinctly different than the Fun Ghost that you all are struggling with."

and another Quote:

"Some can be done, some can’t. But there will be little debate in the future, right ? "



We do not have to list the Ghost modes as Ghost #1, Ghost #2 and Ghost #3. The 2 Ghost modes are not listed that way now.


As far as there being some type of progression from Ghost to Strict Ghost, well I actually do see one in something said above somewhere by someone. But maybe it is how I want to read it.

What I see is this, if you run across something in a mission or FM while Ghosting that makes you question the rules and don't understand what to do or disagree or want a way to keep from failing and/or want to debate it; then just move on up to Strict Ghost and that whole problem will be settled for you. It is the answer to all of your consternations. The Gameplay Options are Real Clear! ;)

There ain't NO Exceptions, Deal With It!

Dafydd,
The mindset anology is this: Is based on a Premise or Concept of Garrett as a character or as a person. Here is part of the concept as an example in Strict Ghost that I hope makes sense. These are my words only.

"As a person and as a Thief Garret does not Kill, Period. He does not care what the Objectives say, he playes outside the game demands. The game does not tell him what kind of person to be. He will not Kill for any reason." Simple version: The Rules and Garrets character prevail over the Objectives.

"But in Ghost and Supreme Ghost, the Objectives do temporarily alter Garrett's Character. He will Kill if he is told it must be done as long as he doesn't violate anything else." Simple version: The Objectives prevail over the rules and Garrets character.


And you are right,
If an Objective came up to Kill in Strict, not only is it a Bust but the mission simply can not be completed. Unless you switch midstream to another Ghost mode.



If all this isn't clear I will burn the next batch of waffles! :D

dafydd
17th Dec 2003, 10:13
[Sneak]


;) Notice my Winkie!

What, again? Yeesh. You know, there are ads in the men's magazines that can take care of that, uh, little problem there.... :D

Can we really believe that Garrett, confronted by an unexpected problem of a terribly serious nature that can only be solved by killing -- protecting his own life, for example, or protecting the life of someone he loves -- he would be so scrupulous to principle that he would refuse to kill, even if it meant someone he cares about (even himself!) would die instead?

If so, then Garrett is a monster.

And why, o friends, does he carry a sword in darn near every mission?

The real answer is that he carries a sword because some players like to swordfight. But the moment you resort to that explanation, you have abandoned the "Garrett mindset" myth and admitted it is simply a game.

My only point with this thrust is that all these modes are nothing but game variations, and we must recognize that; there is very little "reality" about them. Even ghost is unrealistic, in that real criminals are not the sort of principled dilettantes that you find in Lord Peter Wimsey novels; they are violent thugs who abjure assault only insofar as they are afraid of being hurt in the fracas.

"First, postulate a hole."

We imagine, thus, a thief with moral scruples; we even feel bad when he robs the servants and pagans in their huts. We avoid violence because we are nonviolent (at least, I have never in my life coshed anyone with a blackjack). But these are just pretend scruples for a pretend game.

Can't we just agree that strict ghost differs from fun ghost only in that it has more restrictions, making it more challenging, and that there is no deeper meaning to it?

Dafydd

Sneak
17th Dec 2003, 16:14
Dafydd,
I am not arguing for or against Strict or Ghost or even any angle on the modes. I was just making what the difference is clear to you. Thats the way Clayman wrote Strict and thats the way it is. Does not matter what you or I or anyone thinks. That is his choice or character concept. Strict plays outside the game demands based on the charater that Clayman wrote for the Thief. He will steal, he will not kill to save a helpless child from the bad guy.

Thats the way it is.

On the Reality side though which I won't get into much cuz we all have opinions. But just for fun.

In LotP, a Thief goes out through a real town plying his trade, he comes across a group of arguing gang bangers and they kill each other, he is not seen or heard and kills no one and goes on his merry way. That is prefectly real to me in the real world. It could happen.

Garret does not kill anything there.

That whole Archer gig is a Welcome Zone trigger type fun filler thing. Is part of the game So as far as Reality goes, it would not be a Bust. As far as the game and Ghost goes it is also not a Bust.


Reality is an interesting thing to debate but right on, It is a Game, Only a Game. It will never be completely real. I play it for recreation.

Clayman referred to Strict as "Ghost - The Simple Mans Rules" as I recall. Maybe that is how it should be presented as well. And with his wording. But as I said, to my mind it is also the very first Ghost Mode we had before the changes and umm..................complications? HA! ;)

Peter_Smith
17th Dec 2003, 19:26
As I read the above, I think we are all on the same wavelength, and the answer is clear. We describe Ghost as the mode most commonly played, having reasonable exceptions based on consensus, including objectives and scripts. We keep the rules concise and list all the examples and details about alerts separately. We describe Strict Ghost as having no exceptions, and we mention Strict to beclayman's initial concept and philosophy. Then Supreme is described for what it is.

I would like to use the word strict rather than original to describe Clayman's ideal, simple man's philosophy, because the basic Ghost rules most of us play (including the exceptions) have existed for several years and have been called "original" by some. And, in fact, the Strict mode is a rigorous interpretation that allows no exceptions, which is what the word strict means, so there should be no mistaking the meaning of the term.

Any objections? If not, I will put keyboard to document and propose a final version that I hope will satisfy everybody.

Can we agree that this concept of ghost modes and presentation is locked in, and the only further debate will be on specific words in the final proposal, and not on philosophy, reality, or whatever?:)

dafydd
17th Dec 2003, 21:20
[Peter, Sneak]

I have never had the slightest objection to the existence of strict ghost or to the specific rules of strict ghost and fun ghost (the latter hereafter simply "ghost"), and I have no opinion whatsoever on the historicity.

I only noted that each of these modes is just another, more challenging way to play the video game Thief; there is no "proper" interpretation of how or why any particular mode would be chosen. That's all.

As I am an arrogant and egotistical snob, I recommend you just take my last version here, rewrite to eliminate whatever you don't like and to add or change infelicities, but keep the basic structure (divided into sections for alerts, property, injury/death, &c.) and formatting (bolding, font size, and suchlike).

If you think the second, example-post is too long, or you prefer different examples, go for it; I'm not wedded to the specifics of what I write here!

But please, for the love of God, Monstressor -- can we have no mention of winkies anywhere in either document? ;)

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
18th Dec 2003, 07:40
I have placed a draft set of rules in another thread. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30310) Please make comments here, in this thread. The other thread is locked to keep all the comments in one place.

Old Man
18th Dec 2003, 12:29
Regarding the new Official Ghost Rules (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30310) thread.

We have traditionally referred to Ghost busting AI alerts as being level two alerts. These are level three (and higher?) DromEd alerts. Dunno if any here care about this. It may be kind to those Ghosters who don't frequent this forum, but are playing to those rules, to also refer to them as level three alerts in the rules. In fact, the sound files associated with these alerts contain these numerals in the file names.

For the record, it appears that DromEd level one alerts are pairs of comments. "What's that?" followed an appropriate time later with "Must'a been rats!" sort of thing. Knowing this, the player can determine the exact moment that the level one alert is ended. DromEd second level alerts are unpaired.

dafydd
18th Dec 2003, 12:50
[Peter]

I like my formatting better. This seems like a big blob of text with nothing breaking it up for the eye.

One thing has always bothered me:

Rule 1 for ghost reads "Expert difficulty only;" but the same rule for supreme ghost reads "Expert Skill: or the highest skill level available in the mission."

Supreme shouldn't have laxer rules than ghost; I recommend the first rule of ghost be copied from the first rule of supreme, and any other rule that is functionally identical in both should be the same wording in both.

Dafydd

Vanguard
18th Dec 2003, 14:12
Peter,

In your other locked thread ("Official Ghost Rules", http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30310), the first rule needs to be changed. It says:

1. Expert difficulty only.

That needs to be changed to:

1. Highest difficulty level available and playable, usually Expert (although it might be renamed by FM author).

Sometimes the author only provides two difficulty levels which would be the first 2 difficulty levels (Normal, Hard). Sometimes the author provides only one difficulty level (Normal). Sometimes the author has defined all three difficulty levels but the top one (Expert) or the top two (Hard and Expert) are all the same as the first difficulty level (Normal), or they may not even be playable (bugs, weren't really supposed to exist, no objectives). And since the author can rename the difficulty levels, it may not be called Expert for the highest available and playable level.

Without the clarification, the rules would exclude any FM that did not have 3 difficulty levels, the difficulty levels were not different, or the top one or two difficulty levels were bogus (not meant to exist). My concept for ghosting is that you ghost whatever was the highest difficulty level available and which was a valid difficulty level.

Vanguard
18th Dec 2003, 14:32
Peter,

Regarding rule 4 in your locked "Official Ghost Rules" post and the exclusion of rats, the excuse is due to them do not reacting to Garrett. What about in FMs where they do react? In many if not most or all missions, the rats will scurry away when Garrett gets within inches of them (or maybe has efffectively stepped on them). They actually do react, they just don't attack but then neither do the passive townsfolk. There are missions in which rats, when alerted, will hurl exploding cheese bombs. Maybe the rat exclusion should read:

Rats are excluded unless, when alerted, they alert other non-rat AIs, attack you, or perform some action to alter the environment.

I added the environment clause because I bet some author might come up with the idea to script a rat so when it alerts then it scurries over to a pressure plate or button to close a gate, cause an explosion, or some other non-ghosty result; i.e., it's a guard or sentry rat.

Another problem arises when authors re-skin the AIs, so a rat AI doesn't look like a rat. Many of us players have already seen new skins or new AIs developed by FM authors, or where one AI supplants a different one. If it sounds like a rat, behaves like a rat, but doesn't look like a rat, is it still considered a rat?

Vanguard
18th Dec 2003, 14:45
Peter,

Regarding the rules in your locked "Official Ghost Rules" post, the exceptions probably should not be enumerated as rules. That is, a separate section called "Exceptions" should be delineated. Also, the exception should not be noted within a rule itself.

For example, rule 3 should just be a no knockout rule. Then down in the Exceptions section should be noted that the objectives override the ghost rules (actually "rule 11", which is really an exception, is already noted in the commentary section).

Also, in the commentary (or exception) section, it says, "So long as you do this without alerting other AI ...". Hmm, does that mean we are now allowed to alert the AI that will be killed per an objective? I thought that even the targeted AI weren't supposed to get alerted, too. For example, when killing Rameriz, if an objective, I thought that I had to sneak up on him, too, and either kill him or blackjack him and drag him off to kill him but at no time could even Rameriz be alerted. So maybe "other" should get replaced with "any".

Although I have played under the assumption that not even the assassination target can be alerted, the authors will sometimes "cheat" (that's how I feel) by using an attribute that will make them alert when you start to use a weapon. You can brandish your weapon (i.e., select it) but as soon as you wield it (i.e., draw an arrow on the bow or start a sword swing) then the AI, or maybe several of them, will go onto full alert. I've always felt this was a cheap cheat on the part of the author to force a fight since physically there's no difference in a sword in hand swaying in the air around your hip out of its sheath or swaying in the air at your side or over your head. Sometimes you can find the boundary within which readying your weapon will alert the AI so you can get farther away, like outside the room or beyond some distance away from the AI. You can even ready your weapon outside the boundary and then run into that boundary and get at the AI without alerting the AI (i.e., the phony alert only occurs when you ready your weapon within the boundary). If only the target alerts because of this phony alert then I don't care because they're going to be dead anyway and can't tell anyone it was me (as Garrett) that killed him. If other AIs, however, get alerted then I have to test (and reload when it fails) where is the boundary outside of which I can ready my weapon without triggering the phony alert (I don't know if this is scripted or an AI attribute).

Vanguard
18th Dec 2003, 15:13
Peter,

For rule 8 regarding the use of quirks, the ones mentioned are documented and can usually be repeated although sometimes after numerous repeated attempts. Although a couple quirks are mentioned, to be more general shouldn't it also mention that whatever quirk is used must be reasonable repeatable. That is, a quirk that cannot be repeated is a bug or is a one-time effect cannot be used to retain a successful ghost.

Scenario 1: You're stuck on a wall (i.e., snagged into the texture or boundary), wrestle around to get unstuck before the AIs come back, and manage to pop through the wall so you don't get discovered by the AIs. That's a fluke and shouldn't be used in keeping your ghost unbusted. It cannot be repeated by that player or other players. Here the quirk saved your arse.

Scenario 2: You are required to kill someone. That someone is far enough away from other AIs or secluded so that their wail in dying won't be heard by other AIs. However, the arrow happens to pass through the target instead of hitting him, flies farther, and hits something that then alerts other AIs. When not ghosting, I'm sure we've all experienced the occasional broadhead that passes through an AI rather than hits it. Here the quirk caused a bust and you are forced to reload from a prior save.

Scenario 3: Sudden Heart Attack Syndrome. This should not cause a bust of your ghost but will require a reload from a prior game save. It's not a bust, it is a quirk, but you cannot continue after it occurs.

If the quirk allows you to continue the game with your ghost still intact then it has to be a repeatable quirk. It may require skills beyond your current ability but it must be proven to be repeatable. I have never bother to practice and become expert at banner transmigration so I've never done it, but others can and I could, too, if I wanted. It's possible to repeat the quirk. I have also used the spring effect of a self-closing door: crouch, press against the opened door, wait for it to try to self-close (it must not then re-open itself but remain pressed against you), and then step forward which can result in getting catapulted at high speed to get quickly past an AI with just a first alert or across a cravass too wide to get across otherwise (but be careful not to splat against a wall). It can be repeated but can take something like 40 retries to get it to work again. In Thief1, you can jump much farther on subsequent immediate jumps after landing (triple jump, quadruple jump, etc.) which allows you to escape AIs that run as fast or faster than you or to get across a cravass too far otherwise to cross. That's repeatable. As long as the player or someone has demonstrated that the quirk is repeatable then it is usable in ghosting. Otherwise, it is just a quirk and should not count in saving your ghost.

If someone claims to be able to hit a bullseye with a blindfold and with their back turned to the target, it doesn't count if they only manage to do it once. To be able to be this trickshot archer, you must be able to do it again.

Vanguard
18th Dec 2003, 15:50
Peter,

As regards the rules for Supreme Ghost, for "Turning off electric lights, snuffing candles" not being allowed, I thought they were allowed *if* you turned them back on. Electric lights are almost always on *and* off. Sometimes candles can only be snuffed but in some FMs the author has made it possible to also relight them. I thought the idea was to return everything back to its exact state as before. Although dousing torches is banned, if you can relight it using a fire arrow (and without alerting any AIs or damaging anything) then isn't that the same as if Garrett simply figured out how to use a simple match or rub two sticks together to relight the torch?

Also, another rule says all items are to be returned, like for keys, and indicates that if the item cannot be returned exactly where it was that the player leave it in a logical place, like near where it was gotten or along the AIs patrol route or at their feet. However, it doesn't mention about keys that disappear from inventory when used. Similarly, other items may disappear from inventory when used, like scrolls when used. Some items may become a permanent part of your inventory, like maps, and you cannot return them. And sometimes an objective states that you must leave some book, diary, scroll, knife, or whatever at some location so it does get found (i.e., the objective is to setup someone for the fall or to implicate them). An exclusion should mention items that disappear from inventory, become permanently attached to your inventory, or due to an objective telling you what to do with an item then do not need to be returned. There are also objectives that say to retrieve a scroll, get a diary, take a book, or get evidence that you must take with you so they cannot be returned.

So the "Put Everything back" rule really is "Put everything back unless you're not supposed to" rule. In the same way that objectives override the ghost rules in the [Original] Ghost mode, don't objectives also override the rules in Supreme Ghost mode? If so, and in both Ghost and Supreme Ghost rules, shouldn't rule 2 read as:

2. Complete all objectives. Objectives will override these rules but must be explicit in what ghost rules may be overridden. No extrapolation is allowed. You are allowed to violate the ghost rules only in so far as to what the objective explicitly states.

Although in some ghost modes there is a rule or commentary later that explains that objectives override the rules, I don't see why such explanation should be in a separate rule or comment section when it could be included right within the "complete all objectives" rule itself. It's really not a side issue that objectives override the rules. To complete all objective really means that they must override the rules so stating that they override the rules is just clarification and the reason we are considering them to get rewritten, anyway.

Vanguard
18th Dec 2003, 16:04
I think the Property Damage rules (in any ghost mode) need to state:

"No catastrophic property damage is allowed. Catastrophic damage is when the object is destroyed or recognized to be in a different condition than before. Incremental damage up to but less than catastrophic destruction is allowed. This allows you to use the object but you cannot destroy it. Items that disappear from inventory or when used do not count as destroyed."

Then arguments about dropping or throwing a crate where it makes an ever increasing damage noise (but before eventual catastrophic destruction when it flies apart), scratches on the internal lock mechanism from lockpicking, damage from rope arrows impinging into wood beams, wear on hinges from opening doors or movable banners, soggy torches after being doused so they normally could not be relit until dried and would be noticed to be soggy, and the like would be covered since it is only when the object takes enough damage until it is destroyed is when the catastrophic event causes a ghost bust.

Although lockpicking is mentioned, it doesn't mention that dropping a crate to stack it will incur damage or tossing it along the grass to quickly and quietly move them is also allowed although they are taking incremental damage. Keys, stone tablets, or other objects that disappear when used are not considered destroyed. That was just the author reducing your inventory size or not having to bother with the object after it got used.

Vanguard
18th Dec 2003, 16:09
In the Supreme Ghost rules, #15 and #16 really aren't rules so they should not be enumerated as rules. As with Ghost rules, just tack on as separate paragraphs at the end as to what is Perfect Thief mode under Ghost and Supreme Ghost modes.

Sneak
18th Dec 2003, 17:59
Meister Peter the Smith and All,
I am a bit swamped. Christmas is upon us and between all I am doing businesswise it may be a couple before I can actually read all the above and the Rules Topic in depth and give a firm comment.

I guess there is no big hurry anyway. Better to have it right than rushed.

However I have scanned above and the other topic real quick I did not scrutinize it though.

First I am assuming that you just cut n pasted the Supreme Ghost Rules. Since they are not part of the edit thats what should be done. And also, as a point of Respect I would ask that you put Claymans name before mine in the introduction you made before the Supreme rules. Even though I share those rules with him and we had the same ideas when we wrote it, there would not be a Supreme Ghost if there had not been Ghost first. Please change that for me. And also, the change makes Alphebetical sense. :)

On the Skill Difficulty thing above in Ghost as opposed to the rule in Supreme Ghost. Is a point well taken, when we wrote Supreme we were mindful that some FM's had different names for the skills and some............................players,............................could not figure out which one was Expert, some missions had one skill level so it could not be defined what skill it was, and some had only two, am sure everyone remembers.

So we wrote that rule to handle the trouble. In fact we wrote all the rules and they were worded as well as possible to try and forestall most debates while still keeping it as a follow on to Ghost,

A side note: I have never said this before but when we wrote the Supreme rules, at the time it would have been REAL easy to have added a rule that said" The Rules Prevail Over the Objectives!" And that was actually something that was discussed and considered.

I think Ghost as a play mode is well rounded out having a set of rules with that that Strict Premise in there in so many words. And if you will read Strict Ghost Rules which is personally where I think we started, and then read Ghost Mode Rules, no matter where you stood on any debates, you might agree with me that Clayman has been "The Benevolent Dictator" He coulda said NO! But still Ghost was kept on a good path.

Will give my total opinions when I can sit back and read it all and swallow it. :)

dafydd
18th Dec 2003, 20:00
[Peter]

Bouncing off one of Vanguard's posts, perhaps we do need a special "Exceptions" rule; if so, it should mention that if a door disappears when you open it, that shouldn't count as a ghost bust (destruction of property), as it is just an engine failure regardless of the fact that it often IS replicable (that is, it happens no matter how many times you reload and open that door).

This is another good reason to restore the bolded general-category heads: many ideas relate to a single theme.

I think I'm starting to disagree with the idea that all "exceptions" should be lumped together at the end. This would be confusing, in my opinion: I would rather see each exception associated with the rule from which it excepts.

To me, this:

1. No kills;

2. No BJs;

3. No property damage;

4. No alerts;

5. Exceptions -- you can kill or BJ if it's required, you can do infinitesmial property damage, property damage caused by an engine quirk doesn't count, and alerts that are scripted are all right...

...is more confusing than this:

1. No kills unless objectives require it;

2. No KOs unless objectives require it;

3. No serious property damage except caused by engine quirk;

4. No alerts except those that are scripted.

This way, the player has only to look at a single rule to see whether there are exceptions that cover his situation, rather than reading through a lengthy Exceptions rule, mostly full of stuff that doesn't relate, to try to find whether his situation is a bust or allowed.

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
19th Dec 2003, 03:55
Like Sneak, I am swamped with preparations for Christmas. I probably cannot complete this job until the week of Jan 5. So le't just rest a bit and do not be impatient. It will come.

There are some good suggestions up there, to be incorporated later, but a few that I disagree with.

Dafydd, I changed some aspects of your format because I thought I was improving it (and still think so). I had good reasons for the changes. For example, I removed bold headings in rules because there was essentially one bold heading per rule, and that kind of organization seemed redundant. Like a heading Alerts: no alerts are allowed. I prefer a basic, numbered list, consistent with all the other rules that have been posted here by everyone involved. I tried to keep it simple. I edited the rules so there are more of them, but each one deals with only one topic. For example, melees were previously thrown into another subject as an afterthought. I put all the sections in one post because I think that makes it easier to read. With lettered bold headings, it should not be hard to follow.

Sneak,

Supreme was mostly a cut and paste, but I did edit a few small things without changing the intent. If you read carefully, you may find the edits, or you may not. Let me know if you are bothered by any of them.

Vanguard,

I don't like the idea of putting all the exceptions in one place, and I am pleased that Dafydd agrees with me. I actually tried that, and it made the first part seem contradictory. You say one thing first, and then half a page down you refute it. I had a hard time writing it so each statement seemed like it was telling the whole truth. What I have is a compromise in that regard, but I think it does the job.

Vanguard
19th Dec 2003, 23:02
[i]Vanguard,

I don't like the idea of putting all the exceptions in one place, and I am pleased that Dafydd agrees with me. I actually tried that, and it made the first part seem contradictory. You say one thing first, and then half a page down you refute it. [/B]

Nope, didn't refute myself. I would like a quick list of rules so it can be checked without having to read a book and wade through them all to see which looks to be most applicable. What I said about the "objectives override rules" condition is that it should not be placed in an exceptions section. I don't consider it an exception. The intent is to play the game using a certain style, but the goal is first to play the game. You don't get to play a different mission than the one outlined by the objectives. The objectives are a major part of the mission. Ever play a mission without objectives? Okay, so maybe you do when they are in a different language but you not understanding them doesn't obviate them. Has there ever been an mission with no objectives? Without any objectives, there would be none to trigger the end of the mission.

Something that is not an exception or is a clarification should be included with the rule. To me, in Strict Ghost, having the rules override the objectives *is* an exception because you're not playing the same mission. You are tossing out objectives because they don't *fit* in your preference on how you want to play the mission as opposed to how the author commands that you do. To me, throwing out objectives definitely means you are not playing the same mission as the rest of us. Aw, you don't like to kill, you have your own rules that demand that you don't kill, so instead of just not playing the mission at all you instead contrive a new derivative mission that says you don't have to kill.

I'm not sure Strict Ghost is actually harder than Ghost. If you can simply toss out an objective that doesn't fit in your play style then you've made the mission easier to play (provided the author doesn't script some environment change or effect that triggers only on the kill that lets you do continue the mission). If a mission says to kill someone, it can be d*mn hard or impossible to kill the target without alerting the target and/or other AIs. Gee, just toss out that objective and the mission gets so much easier. The objective says to destroy a statue but your personal compunction says no, so you don't, and so you don't have to worry at all about the noise alerting other AIs. If the kill or property destruction required by an objective also scripts a change in the game that then lets you complete it, well, then you don't have to complete the rest of the mission, either. All because you tossed out objectives that you weren't comfortable with. So from what I see of the ghost modes, to order from easiest to hardest would be: Strict, Original, Supreme.

clayman
19th Dec 2003, 23:43
This is probably going to be controversial, but here goes.

I never intended any Ghost mode to penalize/bust players for scripted events that cause fights, melees, apparent injury or death to occur, as long as Garrett didn't actively [b]do[/i] anything other than walk into the area. And no damage in the stats. My theory is, in a realistic view, that event would have happened if anyone walked through(shopkep on the way home, guard on patrol, etc.), not just Garrett. Passive observer only. So, as long as the archer LotP scenario doesn't result in damage stats, then thats Ok.

example.....Garrett : (walking by as the LotP archer argument breaks out) "Wow, what's going on there? This could be interesting; I'll hide and watch."

Now, if Garrett pushes an elevator button that squashes an AI ( I see a Cistern argument coming), and that damage shows up, then he's busted.

Sorry if this confuses rather that clarifies. :)

And, stop quoting me so much; I write stream of consciousness, so all this interpretational, what-did-he-really-mean, stuff is really navel-staring boredom. ;)

Peter_Smith
20th Dec 2003, 01:05
Clayman,

That sounds more reasonable than controversial. So, please tell me what you want us to do about Stict Ghost rules. Leave them there, edit them, or what? Please send me or post any changes you want me to make. I'd be happy to oblige.

Old Man
20th Dec 2003, 01:58
One aspect of this scripted damage not showing on that statistics page has always bothered me. The "Bodies discovered by enemies" count. If an AI spies another dead AI this counter is increased. Doesn't seem to matter if Garrett had anything directly or indirectly or whatever to do with the death. Plus that statistic doesn't seem to work properly (sometimes it says something when there are no bodies at all) or we don't understand how it works. Maybe we should mention it here. To me it implies Garrett caused it.

dafydd
20th Dec 2003, 02:02
[Folks]

What we need is a Loya Durga.

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
20th Dec 2003, 06:20
Is that loya jirga (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1782079.stm)? I think we already have one. That is the problem. :)

clayman
22nd Dec 2003, 00:42
I now have read the "Official Ghost Rules" thread for the first time.

And, btw, Peter has done an excellent job of consolidating our efforts into one thread. Thumbs up, Peter. :)

My first impression is that Supreme Ghost is a bit unnecessary. And that we have been haggling for years for what is, on the face of it, really simple.

Either you believe in the Concept of Ghost, or you don't. If you don't believe, then you can make the rules however you wish, or you don't. I don't care.

Those who wish to have an honest chance to succeed in any mission, regardless of the "rules", choose the left hand road. This road has many tributaries, it will give you many opportunities to bend the rules, interpret the rules, even break the rules, in your desire for success. Good luck to you; you have joined the "Basic Ghost" club.

Those of you who wish to have an inflexible, empirical, defined set of rules that you measure yourselves against, with no pride or dishonor of failing, regardless of mission or design; then so be it. You have joined the "Pure Ghost" club, and the right hand road. :)

See ? I have made it so simple to decide upon. :)

dafydd
22nd Dec 2003, 21:27
[Peter Smith]


Is that loya jirga?

Since it's a transliteration anyway, it would be loya durga, loya djerga, loya jorga, or any of a number of other spellings, depending on which tribe in Afghanistan -- or Ahfahneestan -- you are attempting to transliterate :D . (On a related note, do people live in a city called Berming Ham or one called Bumming Um?

[Clayman]


Either you believe in the Concept of Ghost, or you don't.

Well, depends on what the definition of "believe" is. Or the definition of is is. (While we're at it, what is the definition of definition?)

I believe in the "concept" of ghost, that Garrett wants to be unseen and unnoticed. The question is how to implement that belief in the context of a computer videogame... and thereby hangs the controversy.

For example, why is it any more of a violation of the "unseen, unnoticed" law for Garrett to leave a body behind than it is to leave a hole where some urgently protected magical gem used to be? If some noble is spending half his annual rents from the peons protecting some ancient artifact, and it suddenly goes missing, I'd be willing to bet real money that somebody, somewhere is going to suspect a thief has been there!

Since you have now come by and removed the one thing Peter (inadvertently) added to your concept of what you now call "pure ghost" -- the thought that you could not trigger scripted events that busted the ghost, such as the archer fight in LotP -- that reduces it down to the caricature I used earlier: that there is no way to use skill to turn a ghost into a pure ghost: the only pure-ghost skill is in realizing right from the start whether there is going to be an objective that will eliminate any chance of achieving pure ghost... because there is no other difference between pure and basic than the requirements of the objectives.

Thus, we have the following scenarios:

1. Objective pops up that requires you to kill so and so.

Ghost response: kill so and so, but do it stealthily, so that nobody else alerts.

Pure ghost response: quit.

2. Initial objective to kidnap Fred Flintstone.

Ghost response: set up ambush, knock him out with no damage and without alerting those nearby.

Pure ghost response: don't play mission.

3. When you look at an inscription, an objective pops up to first resurrect, then to kill the "ghost" (zombie) of Constance.

Ghost response: do it in a way that the patrolling haunts don't notice.

Pure ghost response: don't read the inscription.

4. Objective appears to destroy the death machine that will kill the entire state, including Garrett.

Ghost response: run around collecting a couple of explosive devices and flares, sneak into the machine area and plant them, follow AI around to see how far away they get, then carefully time the patrols of the guards so that when you blow the stupid thing up, nobody is even aware that you have done so, and you can get away clean.

Pure ghost response: steal the candlesticks and coin stashes, then go to the exit and press Ctrl-Shft-Alt-End.

If anyone can come up with a scenario where winning at pure ghost or having to settle for mere basic ghost turns on one's skill at the game of Thief, please let me know... I'm dying to find out whether there is any difference other than deciding to play on or quit the game when an offending objective pops up.

Dafydd

Vanguard
22nd Dec 2003, 23:29
Dafydd,

That's why I mention in my earlier post (I know I'm getting ignored now) that pure ghost, strict, ghost, or whatever it's called is actually a far easier style to play. If the rules overrule the objectives:

- You don't need to figure out how to get close enough to the assassination target to blackjack him quietly to drag him off to kill somewhere else more secluded.

- You don't smash the statue that you're told to smash. Makes it very easy to complete the mission (which would have to be done using Ctrl-Shift-Alt-End) if you don't have to bother figuring out how not to alert the AIs to the smashing noise.

- Any boundary triggered event (archers in LOTP, radar for spiders, splat ball trap with no pressure plate, eyes, or other mechanism to trigger the trap, etc.) has to be avoided which means you don't have to visit that portion of the map if there is no other way there.

When an objective would violate the inviolate rules, you either stop playing the game, ghost the rest of it of what there is (since sometimes events are scripted based on the kill or damage), or don't even start the mission (i.e., pull the covers over you head, go back to sleep, and hide some more). For as expert as Garrett is supposed to be at thieving, he is such a coward that he ends up thieving very little, so he's no master thief at all.

Yes, some missions are unghostable because of how they are designed. They should NOT be considered unghostable because of the objectives. I remember very clearly that we ghosters have often told FM authors to *NOT* design their mission to be ghostable. Deliberately making it ghostable could make it too easy to ghost, every ghoster would end up doing it the same way, and it would make it easier in normal mode, too. Ghosting is supposed to be a challenge greater than playing the game normally. Not a whiner's complaint that the mission is just too harsh for their pallette. Do cowards actually egos? How can Garrett claim or believe he is a master thief, or the other AIs purport that he is when he cowers under his covers because he simply picks and chooses which missions to tackle and doesn't even bother tackling most of them?

You're supposed to *discover* through involving yourself in a mission if it is ghostable or not. Precognition that a mission is unghostable and simply quitting the mission, circumventing portions of it (which means you are NOT ghosting the same mission that everyone else gets to play), or never ever bothering to start it is NOT ghosting! That's whining and quitting.

Nothing herculean about some overly picky thief who claims he is a thief but doesn't really want to do anything bad. Would we have bothered watching the rest of the Indiana Jones movies if in the first one he decided that he couldn't get that golden skull because setting off the traps caused a change in the environment that could be noticed later? How would watch a movies series about a cowering wuss trying to be super stealthy but always finding an excuse for not accomplishing much?

The name is Garrett. Not Woody Allen.

dafydd
23rd Dec 2003, 07:23
[Vanguard]

I agree with everything above, except for this one:


Any boundary triggered event (archers in LOTP, radar for spiders, splat ball trap with no pressure plate, eyes, or other mechanism to trigger the trap, etc.) has to be avoided which means you don't have to visit that portion of the map if there is no other way there.

Clayman himself has proclaimed that abstract/original/strict/pure ghost does not require you to avoid triggering scripts that you had nothing to do with starting other than crossing a menagerie lion, like the archer fight.

But because of that, though I do agree with your basic point about this version of Garrett being more of an effete coward than a master thief, my objection is even more basic:

I do not believe there is any distinction between fun ghost and pure ghost now except for the fact that in pure ghost, you have to quit more often.

Let's look at fun ghost (hereafter, simply "ghost") and supreme ghost for a counterexample. You come to the dining room in the new version of The Skull of St. Yora, and you notice it has a lot of loot -- but is brightly lit.

In ghost, you can (if you are quick about it) shoot a moss arrow at the lightswitch, newly installed in this version, which plunges the room into darkness, allowing you to loot everything.

In supreme, you would have to make an attempt to get the loot without turning off the lights, because that is not allowed. You would have to be an utter God of Ghost to pull this off!

Thus, there is a difference of skill and playstyle between ghost and supreme ghost; they are distinct, and supreme is much harder than ghost.

But I cannot construct any scenario in my head that would likewise distinguish between ghost and pure ghost on the basis of either skill or playstyle. In every mission I can imagine, if the objectives don't require a ghost bust, then any ghost of the mission is automatically a pure ghost; if one of the objectives does require something forbidden, then the ghost is merely a fun ghost.

There is no other distinction: so all the "mode of play" really describes is a mode of mission design! There is no difference in how one plays a mission, only in how you report the results: "pure ghost" if the objectives are well behaved, mere "ghost" if they are unruly.

If I'm not totally wrong, then what is the point of pure ghost?

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
23rd Dec 2003, 16:45
I agree with you, Dafydd and Vanuard. I think there is no point in terms of skill or gameplay. The only point is that in the player's mind he has not indulged in any unclean behavior. In exchange, the pure player gets to play less because some missions are intrinsically impossible. It is about the same as a player saying he will not play any game, i.e., FPS, that requires killing. It is basically a purist viewpoint to say that a ghost should not engage in or cause any behavior that is unghostly, regardless of circumstances.

Sneak
23rd Dec 2003, 18:22
A Pointed Note: Do Not Rename Ghost. It is what it is, people across the world who Ghost know what it is. Even the ones elsewhere who have skewed rules know what it is. It is Ghost Thief Mode, or Ghost Mode, or Ghosting. Don't change the name or even consider changing the name. A Truely bad idea.

OK, I am finished tripping over that one!

Wow guys,
Some interesting stuff up there. And I guess you already know that I agree.

It takes absolutely no more gameplay skill at all to play Strict as oppsosed to Ghost. And that goes vise versa, neither one will task you more or up the ante on the other. There is no difference in skill.

The basic difference is the moral equation and the mostly hard and fast rules. Strict does limit you far more than Ghost.

Basically a while back that is why I asked that if Strict had been the original Ghost, would you still played it.

I still believe it is the original, with No Exceptions tagged to it. That is where it fits logically in my mind anyway. If Strict is intended to be a progression up from Ghost then I don't see it. If it is not intended to be the Original, then it fits somewhere unto itself. Still a Ghost Mode but by its nature it is completely different.

I don't see Strict as the Pure Mode or even the Corrupt mode. I guess those are only words anyway, a name is a name.

A Pure Ghost to me is Ghosting a Mission without using any Potions or any Sugar in the Engine Techniques. My self enforced way to play as I use that other stuff as a LAST RESORT! I have usually referred to it as a Straight Ghost Success in the past. My term only though. Could be called a True Ghost Success as well.

I have a lot of other thoughts but will save em a bit.

But I must poke some fun now. Maybe it is expected yet is fitting considering: And ya better take it in the Spirit intended. ;)

Clayman,
Bbbbbbbb....asic Ghost? Baaaaaaaasic Ghost? Ima Basic Ghost...oh the anquish of it! ;) And all this time honing those skills and come to find Ima Basic Ghost! How to remedy this.

I guess its time has come.

Ladies and Gentelmen,
Introducing:

Basic Ghost Thief Mode

All the Accepted Ghost Rules
All the Ghost Skills
All the Approved Ghost Exceptions
and a 10 Pound Sack O Sugar! ;)

Try it and become a Master of Basic Ghost today!

LMAO, sorry I just had to jump on that one, could not let it go by. :)

dafydd
23rd Dec 2003, 21:25
[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
23rd Dec 2003, 21:53
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
24th Dec 2003, 19:16
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
24th Dec 2003, 20:24
Merry Christmas Guys!

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

Hope everyone has a Great One! :D

Zaccheus
24th Dec 2003, 20:26
Merry X-Mas !!!
:)

dafydd
24th Dec 2003, 21:34
[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
26th Dec 2003, 01:40
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
5th Jan 2004, 23:42
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
6th Jan 2004, 02:03
Good eye, Klatremus. I'm not sure what that means either.:confused: 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.;) :cool:

dafydd
21st Jan 2004, 20:09
[Folks]

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

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

Dafydd

uncadonego
21st Jan 2004, 20:46
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
21st Jan 2004, 21:07
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
22nd Jan 2004, 02:59
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
22nd Jan 2004, 10:32
[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
22nd Jan 2004, 12:13
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
22nd Jan 2004, 12:52
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
22nd Jan 2004, 16:47
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
22nd Jan 2004, 21:53
Groan

Old Man
23rd Jan 2004, 02:33
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 (http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=681) something to help us pass the time.

Peter_Smith
23rd Jan 2004, 07:09
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
3rd Feb 2004, 06:33
OK. It is done, I think.:eek: :D Draft 2 has been posted in the same place as before, under Official Ghost Rules (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=313223#post313223). 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
3rd Feb 2004, 12:41
I shall have to study that in detail.
:D

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
4th Feb 2004, 23:08
[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 :rolleyes: .

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! :D

Dafydd

Peter_Smith
5th Feb 2004, 02:30
Thanks Dafydd and Zaccheus. I have incorporated your comments.

dafydd
5th Feb 2004, 03:44
[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

Peter_Smith
5th Feb 2004, 05:17
I agree, although I would do a trial baloon at TTLG and then spread out from there. This is may help at TTLG, where many players seem to have only a vague notion of Ghosting. I have been biting my tongue for a long time because until now we did not have anything written, in plain sight and together, that really explained it.

Zaccheus
8th Feb 2004, 00:12
I have a question which is not covered by the new rules:

dafydd was able to 'distract' a guard without alearting him.
(See here (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13309&perpage=25&pagenumber=8#post336131) for details).

On the one hand he followed the rules without breaking them, on the other hand ... shooting an arrow into a wall in order to make an AI turn around so he does not see you, is that really in the spirit of ghosting? What if we were able to do that with non-sleeping guards, without alearting them. Should that be allowed?

Old Man
8th Feb 2004, 01:13
May not be in the 'spirit' of Ghosting but this isn't 'Strict Ghost' mode. Like I asked in the other thread, does it make a difference what noise the guard hears? Are we really going to slog through Dromed to determine whether he's attached to the lock on that door and only that noise is exempted?

IIRC, the very first instance of this was Peter Smith and opening a door. I had Ghosted that FM by bypassing that room because of it. It was the sound of a door opening that caused the AI to stand up in bed. I don't remember if anyone looked in Dromed for a trigger of any kind. It was decided then that it was okay by the rules at that time and I don't think that aspect of the rules has changed since.

IMHO, dafydd's good. By the rules.

Are you sure he doesn't go into alert level two, dafydd? Did you keep your eye on him from the hall? He may have settled back down by the time you got in there. Does he behave any differently with the lock picking sound versus the Broadhead sound? Except for the direction he ends up facing. I still think jumping or dropping something would be a better method but it's still within the rules.

Peter_Smith
8th Feb 2004, 02:34
Old Man has it right. The place which brought up the debate was a man who stood up in a bedroom in Blackmail. Here is the trouble maker:

<center>http://www.mindspring.com/~smithpd/thief/man_in_bed.jpg</center>

After he stood up, he was ghostable but difficult. There was another guard who woke up in a barracks and went on patrol without being alerted. With this ruling, I got Perfect Thief. :)

Old Man
8th Feb 2004, 08:54
I was actually thinking of another mission, an FM. No idea which one. But I do remember this one too. Difference may be this guy might be disturbed by the lockpicking sound rather than the door opening sound. The one I was thinking of the door wasn't locked.

dafydd
8th Feb 2004, 09:50
[Old Man]

The guard exhibits exactly the same behavior for the arrow as for jumping up and down as for the lockpick... the only difference is that IF you are in the room when you make noise, then he will casually turn to face you -- wherever you're standing -- and then he will see you and alert.

To be really specific: if you're in the room when he awakens, he turns towards you, slowly and with sword-hand down. You're in light (there is no way to make the room dark); he looks, says something like "what'd I see there...?" He leans forward, then after a moment, he raises his sword, yells, and charges.

If you're not in the room, he sees nothing and never alerts.

The second time I shot the arrow, I peeked immediately around the doorframe and watched him: exact, same movement... he simply stands up in bed, turns towards the wall and stands there like a dummy staring at wood. He never leans, the sword never comes up, and he never even says a word.

I entered, picked the lock, looted the room, and left, and he never uttered a peep.

Dafydd

Old Man
8th Feb 2004, 12:06
Just out of curiousity, dafydd, does the AI settle facing where you are when he stops moving or where you were when the sound was made. Reason I ask is a recent FM, Retrieval of the Soul there's a situation with two servant AI and a trigger. They start a conversation. When he's finished speaking he goes into search mode for a couple of steps. Author says it's scripted. Anyhow, I've gone into the room in complete darkness and been at various locations when he goes into search mode and he always takes those couple of search steps directly at me no matter where I've gotten too. And in complete darkness. So, he knows exactly where Garrett is. Despite their having the advantage on us with 180 degree peripheral vision versus our 90 but this ESP crops up too.

Zaccheus
9th Feb 2004, 00:34
I wasn't trying to be difficult - just wondering ...
:)

dafydd
9th Feb 2004, 01:26
[Old Man]


Just out of curiousity, dafydd, does the AI settle facing where you are when he stops moving or where you were when the sound was made.

I couldn't tell you. I never tried darting around while he was waking up.

I don't recall the scene in Retrieval of the Soul... what happens, does one servant kill another?

Wait... is this the one where two guys are in a hallway, and one of them is a thief who kills another -- and later you have to steal from him the thing he stole? I don't mean a thief dressed like Garrett; I mean he is a guest, but he steals something from the other. I don't recall if this is in RotS or some other FM.

Dafydd

Old Man
9th Feb 2004, 01:56
dafydd,

I don't recall any killing in RotS. The scene I'm referring to has a male and a female servant AI in a parlor. As soon as Garrett crosses the threshold of the room the male starts babbling. IIRC, there are a couple of coin stacks on a round coffee table in the centre of the room and a fake purple vase on a side table just left inside the door. They're standing in front of a lit fireplace. It's one of the far corner rooms on the third floor. Also, when the two of them finish their chat he starts a patrol to the other corner room across the hall and back and she moves over facing directly into the fireplace all on her lonesome. Had to keep my mind on my work there. Anyhow, since he goes into a two-step search I queried the author and he said it was scripted. The AI certainly settles back into the conversation and carries on as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.

taa2609
2nd Aug 2004, 12:56
a problem with ghosting is that, thief was programmed without it in mind. there are some guard placements which require distraction at the very least. i would love it if ghosting was an official difficulty setting, in which failure was detected by the computer.
some of the 'official' ghosting rules look odd to me. is it possible to lock, using the lockpicks? key returned if key was taken from an NPC's belt. and how do you cause property damage anyway?
also, ive said before. about looting. can we assume that garrett could be a rich guy by now, just by simple burglaries. i like to think he burgles well guarded residences for a reason other than there being lots of loot available. on expert setting, one must take 90% of loot. with this, it means he does get rich quickly and can afford many weapons. which he shouldnt really use. on easy, players can get away with taking less, but then having less to spend afterwards. buying less weapons, for a difficulty setting which promotes weapon use. i would really suggest, that for ghosting, garrett can only take what he needs, and no more. thus, reducing suspicion, and finding it harder to afford tools. easy players can take more. not the other way around.
tommy.

Klatremus
30th Sep 2004, 23:08
Bringing up these supreme rules again...I know I'm a pain in the ass. ;)

There's a bedroom on the 2nd floor of Constantine's mansion in 'The Sword' where 2 nuggets are situated on a ledge in front of a spitfire-trap that will trigger when either of the stones are highlighted. A bust?? No traces are left, but it's a one-time-only trap and could be checked later for it's potential activation... The silver is no longer there for checking when stolen though and that leaves me with a bit of hope for avoiding this trap-bust. Constantine or one of his guards couldn't possibly know whether the trap was sprung unless they could examine the trap-mechanism itself, again since the nuggets no longer exist for highlighting.

Did this make any sense at all?? :confused:

- Klatremus
NORWAY

Peter_Smith
1st Oct 2004, 04:42
Oh, boy, another ghost controversy in the making.:);) Maybe I can nip it in the bud. Others are welcome to chime in if they are willing to accept a BJ to the side of the head. :D

The rule states:

"No triggering of traps is allowed if the trigger is caused directly by Garrett, such as stepping on a pressure plate or crossing an invisible trip wire. If a trap is already running when Garrett arrives (e.g., the fireballs in Bonehoard), it is not a bust."

I would say that no matter what mechanism or programming causes the trap to go off, it is Garrett's presense that caused the trap to spring, so it is a bust. The key word there is "invisible". Garrett does not have to understand what causes the trap to spring.

Arguments about whether guards might check the number of fireballs in the mechanism are irrelevant. This line of reasoning has been discussed and rejected. It is same as the discussion of whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound. It cannot lead anywhere because either viewpoint can be valid (unless you define "sound" very clearly).

I think the guiding principle here is that if the trap is always going, then Garrret's presence cannot be inferred, in any way, by the trap's activity. If the trap is inactive and then it starts when Garrett shows up, then Garretts presence can be inferred. It does not matter if anyone is there to witness it. A mouse will suffice.

I think that Sneak and Clayman would agree with that because they tend to make strict interpretations based on fundamental principles and to reject fancy logic. :)

Klatremus
1st Oct 2004, 09:41
I see, and I agree. Unfortunately, this means the Sword is un-Perfect Supremable, both for these pieces of loot and the diamond in the room with lots of shooting spitfires atop the ramp on the 2nd floor. :(

Thanks for your quick reply though! :)

- Klatremus
NORWAY

Klatremus
4th Oct 2008, 17:58
I'd like to resurrect this thread to ask a question regarding Supreme rules for first alerts. What is the general consensus for situations where AIs dont give comments indicating a first alert trigger ("Who's there?" or "Did I see something?") but DO give settling remarks ("Guess it was nothing" or "I'm getting too jumpy")? I have seen these situations in several FMs, but it is especially apparent in the initial streets (safe zone) of 'A Night in Rocksbourg 2', where both guards and civilians react in this manner.

Has anyone ever thought of this? Or am I the only one crazy enough to bother my brain with such a useless predicament...

Peter_Smith
5th Oct 2008, 16:07
I've never thought about it before.

My interpretation is that the settling remark is strong evidence that there was a first alert, but the AI was simply silent about it. So I think it is a supreme bust.

In contrast, if there is no remark at all and no movement, then there is no evidence of a first alert, so we must assume that there was no first alert.

Norsu
6th Oct 2008, 08:32
I believe this is simply a bug in often used M-FrontGateGuard metaproperty that makes guards neutral until certain conditions are met. The metaproperty however "leaks" sometimes and results in comments that are out of place. These shouldn't be counted as busts because player usually can't avoid them just like in Rocksbourg 2 and few other missions.

A better way to make guards neutral would AFAIK be M-AlertCapZero metaproperty.

Klatremus
6th Oct 2008, 14:33
But if it is a buggy setting in Dromed, why would authors even choose the first option (M-FrontGateGuard)? Can't this choice have been intentional? If the author sets up a condition being aware of its properties, it seems wrong to just treat it as a bug and disregard the bust.

I know nothing about Dromed, so if I am speaking out of my behind I apologize. :nut:

Peter_Smith
6th Oct 2008, 23:43
Dromed is not the issue. The game play situation is what it is, regardless of how it was created or whether or not it is a bug. In the example given, some strong evidence exists that there must have been an alert. That is all there is to it.

Realistically speaking, a silent alert is plausible. At some point, however, there has to be evidence of an alert, or it can't be recognized as such. In this case, the evidence is clear, IMO.

There is one exception to this, which is a bounds trigger for a script, such as the archer fight in Life of the Party. That can't be interpreted as an alert or a reaction to Garrett's presence, so it isn't one.

Norsu
7th Oct 2008, 21:59
I'll continue to use Rocksbourg 2 as an example. In that mission no matter what you do at least one of the AIs at the beginnig (usually the woman next to gate) comments on nothing. Sometimes this happens even if she hasn't heard or seen player, it just happens (most likely some other AI causes the commment or complex triggers). If that's going to bust a ghosting rule then I think the rules are way too harsh.

A good example of pure gameplay issue is in my mission Sir William's Keep where you can't supreme ghost the chapel because the doors make too much noise. Had I aimed for supreme ghostable scene I would have made the doors silent or revamped the layout and it would have worked.

In Rocksbourg 2 this is a bit different since the AIs at the beginning are ment to be neutral (that means the whole start scene is ment to be supreme ghostable automatically) but they fail slightly because of a mysterious bug, a bug that isn't really in the hands of the author or player but rather in the game itself. Of course author could have revamped the whole scene and make all AIs mute to overcome the bug but obviously that wasn't going to happen :).


But if it is a buggy setting in Dromed, why would authors even choose the first option (M-FrontGateGuard)? Can't this choice have been intentional? If the author sets up a condition being aware of its properties, it seems wrong to just treat it as a bug and disregard the bust.

I don't really know how the two metaproperties differ but the latter is more foolproof when it comes to neutral AIs. However I have only used M-AlertCapZero in a simple scene and I don't know how limited it is when compared to M-FrontGateGuard. In Rocksbourg 2 DrK has used M-FrontGateGuard which causes random comments but this may have been intentional to achieve certain rules for AIs to follow. Or maybe DrK just didn't know it can cause comments or didn't see it as a big deal. But I still don't see it as a supreme buster because it cannot be avoided and the whole scene is ment to be neutral ;).

goldsla
13th Oct 2008, 19:07
... flip a switch that causes an AI to move from place A to place B?

I'm designing a new FM, and am thinking of having a bellpull in various rooms which will summon an AI to the indicated room. This will be a mechanism for getting a troublesome AI out of the way without alerting it.

I remember there was a light switch in Ominous Bequest which had the effect of summoning a guard to turn off the lights in a room after you turned them on. That was deemed OK, as I recall, and not a bust. And there was an electrical generator switch, I think it was, in another mission which if you turned it off would kill all the lights in the house, so a guard would show up to turn it back on. I don't think that was classified as a bust either.

Personally, I've been a little troubled by the switch thing for a while. It seems to me that the philosophy behind ghosting is to play in such a way that no AI in the mission whould have any inkling that anything was wrong while you were there. This means, to me, that an unexplained light going on should result in an alert, or an unexplained fuse going out in a fuse box, or an unexplained summoning of a butler to a room with no one there should violate the spirit, if not the letter, of ghosting. But I don't know.

What are the limits of what you can do as a player while ghosting if the FM author has set it up for you? Please let me know your thoughts.

clayman
13th Oct 2008, 21:28
Howdy Thieves - Just happened to drop into the neighborhood and saw this post.

I have not played Ominous Bequest or the other one you reference with the fuse box (those probably being amongst the 200 or so missions I've not gotten to yet), but I think there is some version of Ghost that was created or voted on while I was away that somewhat addresses this scenario ?

There are so many versions now I can't keep them all straight - Perfect Supreme Ultimate Realistic No Saves Penultimate Top Shelf No Bathroom Breaks Extra Primo Good With The Sound Off With The Monitor Off No Eating Of Inventory Allowed No Inventory Use Allowed No Underwear Allowed Let Your Pet Move The Mouse Put Everything Back While Drunk While High No Keyboard On A Laptop While Driving While Wearing A Funny Hat Ghost ? :D

Seriously, isn't one of the manufactured Ghost versions related to something like "you can't touch anything except loot and achieve the objectives" ? Theory being you would leave fingerprints or something ? Or am I confusing that with the loony one where you have to re-lock doors and reignite torches and put keys back ?

I'm glad I've retired from Ghosting, except for an occasional section of a map or two - some of the missions that have been setup to intentionally obfusticate Ghosters would have been fun a few years ago and given a twinge of pride, now they just make me angry and I end up hurting poor innocent AI. ;)

goldsla
13th Oct 2008, 21:55
:lmao:

You're right, Clayman, (and welcome back, btb) it does get a bit silly. But some do take it seriously, and as a (new) mission designer I wanted to better understand this issue for those who do.

Klatremus
14th Oct 2008, 00:06
:lol: I play that mode every day Clayman...

No seriously, I limit it to Ghost and Supreme Ghost. Those are mostly identical, with the latter being somewhat more difficult. As for your situation Larry, I don't think plain Ghost was ever designed with the philosophy that guards wouldn't have the faintest idea anything had happened, or that not a single trace is left behind. They are bound to discover loot missing anyway. If you play Supreme strictly enough, I think you'll complete the mission with as few traces as possible (if any at all). But for plain Ghost you will always have doused lights, moss patches and unlocked doors as potential traces. I think light switches are allowed in that mode for the simple fact that it isn't a dead giveaway someone was there. A torch could have gone out by itself; after all, they all require some kind of fuel. Light bulbs can also go out, or someone else than a thief could have flipped the switch. I think plain Ghost has more 'benefit of the doubt'-situations than Supreme does. In a perfect world, guards would also notice and alert to moss spread around the hallways and doors unlocking by themselves, but alas it is still just a game.

So in short, as long as guards don't enter second level hunt mode, Ghost is good.

clayman
16th Oct 2008, 22:46
I really didn't mean in my post to make fun of those who do take Ghosting seriously, as I did and still do. :o

I think the confusion/problem emerged when we were (back before Bush was rashly re-elected) debating the "meaning" of "real" Ghosting and I wrote a long, boring, and ultimately unproductive treatise that posed that Garrett, as a real thief, would want to get in and out without a trace of anything found askew, otherwise he wouldn't be a successful thief for long and would be behind bars or dead. The loot being missing, a door open or torch out etc. is what it is; as long as he didn't leave evidence of his passing otherwise. (I always had an amusing picture of him taking out his imaginary handkerchief and wiping light switches and other stuff.)

Thus emerged a succession of more "realistic" Ghost modes, each more difficult and vexing than the previous. The stone-cold hardest, was playing a mission all the way through, no saves, no reloads, all loot, all everything (remind me, what was this ? God Thief, Olympic Thief, Get-Out-More-Often Thief ?). At some point I think I just tuned out and dozed out of sheer stupidity on my part, so I may have the details wrong. It became a philosophical debate with a never-ending energy supply.

So this may just be all my fault, 5 years of interest accrued at the bank. The fact that the game still lives, is played, is commented on, debated over, 9+ years later, is just amazing. Its ran through 4 computers in my house, two clayboys, and will I guess make it to the 5th computer planned for this winter. Bless this game and its players.

Amen, and amen. :)

goldsla
16th Oct 2008, 23:31
I really didn't mean in my post to make fun of those who do take Ghosting seriously, as I did and still do. :o No harm, no foul. If we can't laugh at ourselves debating these arcane rules then we are taking ourselves way too seriously. IMHO

Westman
21st Jan 2010, 20:59
maybe we should make a list of situations where supreme ghosting IS actually impossible, and see if we all agree...any starters? i can think of a few annoying buggery places

could there be an alternative forgiveable action for these situations?

Peter_Smith
21st Jan 2010, 23:29
Westman,

I am not quite sure what you mean. Supreme ghosting is impossible if any of the listed rules must be broken at any time to complete the mission. Supreme ghosting is fussy and quite unforgiving.:) If you have a specific question of interpretation, feel free to raise it.

Are you a ghoster? I haven't seen you around. Welcome aboard.

EDIT:

I should have said that this thread was intended for discussion of the rules before they were finalized. The current official rules are found here:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=30310

Westman
22nd Jan 2010, 09:53
has any1 ghosted T2? Wondering what stages are possible. I believe they all are save 1 - Interference(because of KO's required and torch to be doused), 10 - Life otParty(office guard) and 12 - Cargo(KO Cavador) although I will have to run through again attempting to grab all the loot to find out, didnt go after maximum loot last time, and got as far as 10 - Party with ultimate difficulty mod, which makes things pretty stressful sometimes.

and yes i am pretty new here peter, thanks for the warm welcome!

Hexameron
22nd Jan 2010, 22:11
Westman, you've asked very similar questions in another thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=99944), but I'll reiterate my responses...


has any1 ghosted T2?

If you mean has anyone ghosted all of T2, I'm sure at least one person, Sneak, has. Many of us have probably ghosted everything except Kidnap.

You should find this old thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/old-ubb/Thief_2_Ghost_Perfect_Thief_Results_1.htm) of interest. There you can read ghost reports for each Thief 2 mission; all Thief 2 missions have been successfully ghosted.


Interference(because of KO's required and torch to be doused),

Running Interference is ghostable because the objectives state that 8 KOs must be performed. Dousing torches is acceptable unless you're thinking of supreme ghosting.


Life otParty(office guard)... Cargo(KO Cavador)

Read Sneak's report (http://forums.eidosgames.com/old-ubb/Thief_2_Ghost_Perfect_Thief_Results_3.htm) about ghosting Life the Party and Kidnap. He explains how to circumvent all potential ghost busts in both missions. Remember the nudging technique that you didn't like? :)


Party with ultimate difficulty mod, which makes things pretty stressful sometimes.

It may not be possible and I suspect many missions can't be ghosted when playing with the difficulty mod.


maybe we should make a list of situations where supreme ghosting IS actually impossible, and see if we all agree...any starters? i can think of a few annoying buggery places

AFAIK, there has been no thread about supreme ghosting T2, but there is one for T1 (http://forums.eidosgames.com/old-ubb/Original_Mission_Ghost_%20Perfect_Results_Raising_the_Bar.htm).

I'm sure it's already been concluded which missions are supreme ghostable. If I were to make an educated guess, I would say the following can't be supreme ghosted:

First City Bank and Trust, Trail of Blood, Life of the Party, Precious Cargo, Kidnap, and Sabotage at Soulforge. It's been at least four years since I've played the T2 OMs, so I may have missed one or I could be mistaken about what I've listed. Sneak and Klatremus would know.

Klatremus
21st Feb 2010, 15:45
Referring to Supreme rule #2: "Complete all objectives". I assume it's included to encompass optional objectives. But how about hidden (bonus) objectives? For example dropping the notary's title deed at Louise's in 'The Tower' or Elizabeth's body back to her coffin in 'Ominous Bequest'.

The way I see it, you could finish the mission clean, then later discover you had 2 hidden objectives you never found; suddenly you didn't complete rule #2 and you're busted. I think there should be a note in the rules that excludes hidden objectives, perhaps unless the player knows about it (honor system). I can see hidden objectives being conveniently circumvented to avoid busts. That should not be allowed.

Any opinions...?

Peter_Smith
21st Feb 2010, 20:38
Yes. In my opinion, the extent of the mission that you discover and play is optional, provided you finish it. Hidden objectives should not count. What was intended in the language was objectives needed to complete the mission. It is neither fair nor necessary to be penalized for something you could not have known when playing. I would say, in addition, that if you get an additional objective by reading something, you could also bypass that if you can finish the mission without it. It is not required in the rules to read everything or anything.

As for optional objectives that are visible up front, that is a trickier question. I personally think those should be optional, as stated. But then, there are some things about Supreme that I do not understand the motivation for, so maybe I am not the best person to judge it. See if you can contact Sneak. He has not posted much here recently, but it seems to me that we heard a peep out of him once in the last year or so.

If you think that you should not be allowed to circumvent anything, even things you do not know about, then I think that should be your private undertaking, not part of the official rules.

Hexameron
22nd Feb 2010, 02:39
I agree with Peter. Disregard hidden objectives.

To me, it is acceptable to circumvent hidden, bonus, optional, or new objectives in order to ghost the mission. I'm not sure how to interpret the SG rule "Complete all objectives" though. Does that mean you must complete all initial objectives plus every type of objective that the player can trigger in the mission?

Klatremus
22nd Feb 2010, 04:08
'm not sure how to interpret the SG rule "Complete all objectives" though.

Yeah that was my incentive for bringing up the topic in the first place. I take back part of what I said initially and agree that hidden objectives that you are not required to find to complete the mission shouldn't be included under Supreme rule #2. However, why have the rule there in the first place if not to distinguish between just completing mandatory objectives and completing mandatory + optional objectives given up front?

I noticed plain Ghost rules don't have any rule specifying which objectives to consider (except rule #13: "The entire mission must be ghosted to claim success"), so I concluded it had to refer to optional ones... I stand by my reasoning, unless somebody can explain the purpose for the rule's inclusion.


What was intended in the language was objectives needed to complete the mission.

If what you say is correct Peter, then why wasn't this rule also included under the plain Ghost rules?

Hexameron
23rd Feb 2010, 03:41
This discrepancy you've noticed is peculiar. I suppose for the ghost rules, it's a given that the mandatory objectives must be completed - how else are you going to claim a ghost success if you can't complete the mission (unless it's an FM with a broken objective that won't check off or something)? You're right to be confused, though. I also wonder why completing objectives was mentioned at all in the supreme rules unless it concerns new objectives and optional objectives.

It would be great if Sneak and clayman could chime in with their thoughts.

Perhaps this is just one more thing to address in the possible amendments to ghost rules (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=98822&page=3) thread. Have you seen this thread, Klatremus? I don't recall if you gave your opinion on some of the issues brought up there, but I think everyone agrees that the rules need to be amended.

Peter_Smith
24th Feb 2010, 04:36
I noticed plain Ghost rules don't have any rule specifying which objectives to consider (except rule #13: "The entire mission must be ghosted to claim success"), so I concluded it had to refer to optional ones... I stand by my reasoning, unless somebody can explain the purpose for the rule's inclusion.

If what you say is correct Peter, then why wasn't this rule also included under the plain Ghost rules?

The rules were written by two sets of people. Supreme was an add-on to something that already existed. Nobody at the time thought that there was a problem with understanding.

As for plain ghost rules, I contributed to those, and I can tell you for sure that completing the mission does not mean completing hidden or optional objectives. The phrase "entire mission" does not imply anything about objectives. It means that you cannot say you ghosted a mission if you ghosted only part of it and failed in another part. That is all there is to it.

I cannot say for sure what Sneak was thinking when he wrote the supreme rules. I would bet that the idea was that you must complete the mission. Perhaps that was a way of saying that you must complete all objectives even if they include killing someone, etc. If you want to contact Sneak to get his input, be my guest.

As I said previously, to require completion of hidden or bonus objectives requires that you know something that you do not know, which I think is absurd. We take enough flack for our anal ghosting rules already. So, I would never agree to requiring that hidden objectives be completed. I think Hexameron shares my view on that.

Optional objectives that are seen from the outset are debatable. My view is that they should not be required in plain ghosting. They never have been required, and there is no reason to require them now. That feature could be included in Supreme if people agree.

Klatremus
24th Feb 2010, 04:53
As I said previously, to require completion of hidden or bonus objectives requires that you know something that you do not know, which I think is absurd. We take enough flack for our anal ghosting rules already. So, I would never agree to requiring that hidden objectives be completed. I think Hexameron shares my view on that.

I fully agree with you on this point. I think perhaps you misunderstood my initial post Peter. I raised the question because I was unsure of the difference between the two sets of rules, but as you say they were written by two sets of people so the discrepancy is understandable.

I have always thought plain Ghost to only require non-optional/hidden/bonus objectives. However because of Supreme rule #2, I have seen optional objectives (both given up front and found as a required progression through the mission) as being required for that mode. The question is concerning the hidden objectives, where I think we both agree the discussion lies. As I stand, I don't think they should be required for Supreme (and definitely not for plain Ghost), but that it should be mentioned as an amendment to Supreme rule #2.

I hope this makes my viewpoint a little clearer. I apologize if you thought I was being unreasonably argumentative just for the heck of it.

Peter_Smith
25th Feb 2010, 02:06
I have always thought plain Ghost to only require non-optional/hidden/bonus objectives. However because of Supreme rule #2, I have seen optional objectives (both given up front and found as a required progression through the mission) as being required for that mode. The question is concerning the hidden objectives, where I think we both agree the discussion lies. As I stand, I don't think they should be required for Supreme (and definitely not for plain Ghost), but that it should be mentioned as an amendment to Supreme rule #2.

I hope this makes my viewpoint a little clearer. I apologize if you thought I was being unreasonably argumentative just for the heck of it.

LOL. Well, I did think you were being argumentative, but now that you have clarified your view I am happy. Sorry if I caused the misunderstanding.

OK, so I think we agree that in no cases, even Supreme, should it be required to complete hidden bonus objectives. But what about hidden optional objectives? I think there is still some debate about that one.

First a definition: an optional objective is one that appears at some point but which does not have to be completed to finish the mission successfully. Usually it has the words "optional" in it. A hidden optional objetive is an optional objective that is not visible at the beginning.

I am not sure where you saw that requirement to complete optional objectives (colored blue above). I don't think it is in our rules (I could be mistaken), and I am unaware of other sets of rules. Regardless, I take it that you think all optional objectives should be required to be completed in Supreme. I would not agree with "all". First, there is not necessarily a required progression through a mission. It is possible to progress in different ways, some uncovering an optional objective and some not. Thus, it is possible to miss uncovering an optional objective that crops up during the mission. Again, this the same case of knowing the unknowable. An example could be an optional objective to get all the loot after you have found a certain fraction of it. I think that occurred in Lord Alan's Factory. To me, a hidden optional objective is still hidden, so I think we should draw the line by not requiring any hidden objectives.

I would agree that Supreme could require completing optional objectives that are visible at the beginning. But what do you think about an optional objective that, by itself, is responsible for a Supreme bust? Would you like that, or would you want to change the rule back after it happened to you, the argument being that it was optional so there was no need to complete it?

I tend to prefer the "keep it simple stupid" approach and to not require satisfying any hidden or any optional objectives. In other words, the only requirement would be to complete the mission. One advantage of that is that arguments of interpretation are eliminated completely.

Still if you like it, I can accept it. As far as I know, you are the only serious supreme ghoster out there. If you know of more, you might ask them.

Klatremus
25th Feb 2010, 03:42
However because of Supreme rule #2, I have seen optional objectives (both given up front and found as a required progression through the mission) as being required for that mode.

What I should have written here was "...I have viewed optional objectives as required...". I haven't read it anywhere, but between the lines I read the rule as including optional objectives. Hence my initial post of pointing out the discrepancy between plain Ghost and Supreme.

What I meant with "required progression through the mission" was simply in the case of an optional objective popping up as an inevitable in-mission event, hence you cannot avoid getting the objective at some point. That kind of an optional objective to me falls in the same category as if you'd get it up front, before the mission. I totally agree that all hidden/bonus objectives, whether they be optional or not, that you in some fathomable way could accidentally avoid, should not be required under any set of rules.

However, I do think (under Supreme) that if an optional objective requires a bust, it should follow the same rules as if a "normal" objective would require a bust. If the objective's wording explicitly states to perform the bust (i.e. "kill the haunt"), then it's ok and no bust. But if the optional objective would require you to kill a guard that stood in the way of stealing your objective, it would be a bust, even though it was "only" optional.


Perhaps something like this should be added to Supreme rule #2:
"Complete all objectives. This includes optional objectives given in the loadout screen, plus unavoidable optional objectives discovered during gameplay. Hidden or bonus objectives that can be avoided are not required to successfully Supreme Ghost a mission."

goldsla
25th Feb 2010, 06:18
Just to chime in a little, could the phrase "complete all objectives" simply be referring to all disclosed objectives, irrespective of whether they were hidden (or not) at some point in the play of the mission and whether or not they are required to end the mission? That is, if you triggered the disclosing of the objective, you must complete it, optional or no. That makes sense to me for supreme. Not for standard ghosting though. Optional objectives should remain optional when just ghosting. IMHO

I think this is substantively in agreement with Klatremus.

Tannar
25th Feb 2010, 19:13
I guess I'll weigh in here as well. I can see the validity of all of your points and I kind of like Larry's concept of "you break it, you buy it". In other words, if you trigger a hidden objective, the onus is then on you to complete it. That is interesting and could add some nice challenges.

But I want to raise one question for your consideration. When the rules say "Must complete the entire mission", what is meant by "mission"? Are we viewing the "mission" as the FM? Is this equivalent to saying we must complete the entire FM? Or do we mean that we must complete the mission that Garrett has accepted. In other words, are optional objectives ever necessary in order to accomplish what Garrett has set out to do. Let's say he contracted for a job (for example) and must complete certain tasks to fulfill his obligations to that contract. But optional objectives are not really part of his contract, his "mission". So, if we are using "mission" in that sense then optional objectives are irrelevent.

Hexameron
25th Feb 2010, 19:32
Just to chime in a little, could the phrase "complete all objectives" simply be referring to all disclosed objectives, irrespective of whether they were hidden (or not) at some point in the play of the mission and whether or not they are required to end the mission?

I don't agree with the phrase I emboldened above. Since many optional or new objectives can be unintentionally missed by the player, why enforce an honor system and ironman mode mentality that if at any point you trigger some kind of objective, you must take it on?

The way I see it, the only objectives that need to be completed are the "disclosed" ones that are required to end the mission. This encompasses the principal objectives given before the mission start and any additional new objectives that must be triggered in order to complete the mission. I know the discussion is centered on optional and hidden objectives right now, but in my experience, they are not as common or potentially ghost-busting as new objectives.

What I think needs to be permitted in both the ghost and supreme ghost rules is that you can circumvent any newly disclosed objectives if it's possible to complete the mission without them (by reloading and not triggering them). For example, if you can avoid reading a certain book that creates a new objective and still finish the mission, why shouldn't this be allowed even when supreme ghosting?

For those who didn't see it, Peter addressed this issue in another thread:

"Yes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to avoid new objectives if this helps to make the ghost succeed. Just as it is acceptable to avoid going into a room or to find secrets, etc. I would also say that this detail should be reported in case others may want find a way to succeed in spite of the difficult objectives. The ghost run that avoids extra objectives is tainted, just as a ghost run would be tainted if the player explored only half the mission. It is, however, a ghost run."

I don't mean to speak for you Peter - just citing what you've opined recently.

Klatremus
26th Feb 2010, 00:29
I really admire everyone's suggestions and opinions here. I think I disagree with the requirement of disclosed objectives that Larry suggests though. I always do a blackjack run through the mission to find all the loot and discover everything before doing my Supreme run. More often than not I find all the hidden objectives and that would mean they all would be required for me to successfully Supreme. In a way, I am punished for being thorough.

Then you have the situation of replaying the mission 6 months later. Are you exempt of the hidden objectives if you don't remember where they are? Or are you again punished, this time for having good memory?

Perhaps skipped hidden objectives should have to be reported, but I don't think it should be enough to bust any mode. But I do think Supreme should require unavoidable optional objectives, seeing as it is supposed to be a notch up in difficulty from plain Ghost.

I also think it should be allowed to circumvent non-optional objectives that would be impossible to complete without busting ghost (or Supreme). As for optional ones, well you should be allowed to discover them and leave them unchecked if realizing they would bust Ghost/Supreme. I think Hexameron and I are pretty much on the same page here (correct me if I'm wrong Hex).

goldsla
26th Feb 2010, 02:25
I meant any hidden objectives that you trigger in your supreme run. The honor code might require that you disclose your prior runs through the mission before attempting supreme when reporting your results, but should not affect your claim to success. You should disclose any objectives that you decided not to trigger and why in your report. But there should be no penalty for being thorough.


...
I also think it should be allowed to circumvent non-optional objectives that would be impossible to complete without busting ghost (or Supreme) ...
I'm not certain how you can circumvent any non-optional objectives. If they are not optional, you have to complete them to finish the mission. If you don't finish the mission, you have not supremed it. Right?

Peter_Smith
26th Feb 2010, 02:32
I guess I'll weigh in here as well. I can see the validity of all of your points and I kind of like Larry's concept of "you break it, you buy it". In other words, if you trigger a hidden objective, the onus is then on you to complete it. That is interesting and could add some nice challenges.

Thanks for your comments Tannar. But I have to say that I agree with Hexameron and disagree with the above. The reason for my disagreement is that I think it takes the honor system to an unnecessary extreme. My opinion is that if you can avoid the busting objective and still complete the mission with a successful ghost / supreme ghost, then why not do it? Hexameron's analogy with ironman is appropriate. In my view, being able to reload to avoid a bust (or being killed) is essentially the same as being able to reload to avoid a busting objective.


But I want to raise one question for your consideration. When the rules say "Must complete the entire mission", what is meant by "mission"? Are we viewing the "mission" as the FM?...

This was addressed above. The "entire" mission is the FM or OM, from the start to "mission complete". The rule means that you cannot claim to have ghosted a mission if you are busted in any part of it. It is the difference between the term "ghosting", an ongoing, instantaneous process, vs. "ghosted", which we say means "never busted" (allowing for reloads) during the play of the mission.

Peter_Smith
26th Feb 2010, 02:36
I also think it should be allowed to circumvent non-optional objectives that would be impossible to complete without busting ghost (or Supreme). As for optional ones, well you should be allowed to discover them and leave them unchecked if realizing they would bust Ghost/Supreme. I think Hexameron and I are pretty much on the same page here (correct me if I'm wrong Hex).

I am confused. As I read this, it says that you favor not having to complete optional objectives (leaving them unchecked), as I do. This seems to be in conflict with your previous statements that optional objectives must be completed in Supreme (but not ordinary) ghost mode.

Peter_Smith
26th Feb 2010, 02:40
I'm not certain how you can circumvent any non-optional objectives. If they are not optional, you have to complete them to finish the mission. If you don't finish the mission, you have not supremed it. Right?
You can circumvent a non-optional objective that appears, say by reading a book, if you can reload, not activate the objective, and finish the mission anyway. It may be bad mission design, but it is possible.

goldsla
26th Feb 2010, 03:50
Ah. Now I understand. I was considering those to be "hidden" objectives. To me, non-optional objectives are those set of objectives which under all circumstances must be completed to finish the mission. Hidden objectives do come in two colors: optional and, once triggered, non-optional.

In any event, all non-optional objectives which have been triggered (not hidden any longer) must be completed. Any non-optional objectives which you have not triggered, and hence are not required to finish the mission, should not be required, in my opinion, for either ghosting or supreming the mission.

Klatremus
26th Feb 2010, 03:57
I'm not certain how you can circumvent any non-optional objectives. If they are not optional, you have to complete them to finish the mission. If you don't finish the mission, you have not supremed it. Right?

If they are hidden you can circumvent them by not triggering the event, say reading a book that spawns a 'new objective' message. These are sometimes referred to as "bonus" objectives. I know these normally are optional, but in case of a hidden non-optional one, you should be allowed to reload and thereby circumvent it.


I am confused. As I read this, it says that you favor not having to complete optional objectives (leaving them unchecked), as I do. This seems to be in conflict with your previous statements that optional objectives must be completed in Supreme (but not ordinary) ghost mode.

I was talking about hidden optional objectives. I think that no hidden objectives should be required.

To me there are 6 different types of objectives:
1. Given up front, always visible. Required to finish the mission.
2. Same as #1, but optional.
3. Found during the mission as a required event. You cannot finish the mission and not have it in your list of objectives.
4. Same as #3, but optional.
5. Hidden and spawned by performing a specific action that can be missed. You can finish the mission and never having known the objective existed (sometimes called "bonus objective").
6. Same as #5, but optional.

I think plain Ghost should require 1 and 3 only. I think Supreme should require 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Sorry for being so confusing earlier. Perhaps we can use this list and refer to the numbers and make a poll or something...

Peter_Smith
26th Feb 2010, 04:45
Thanks for the clarification, Klatremus.:)

I have no problem with your proposal. Since #1 and #3 are equivalent to "complete the mission", it would be simpler to phrase it as follows.

Normal ghost - complete the mission.

Supreme ghost - complete the mission without leaving any incomplete (unchecked) objectives. Objectives declared irrelevant (a red circle) do not count.

With the above wording none of the distinctions of initial, hidden, bonus, or optional in various combinations need be discussed. That serves only to cloud the issue.

Klatremus
26th Feb 2010, 05:09
I totally agree! :)

goldsla
26th Feb 2010, 05:16
Peter, I think you have succinctly stated my position. We may be in danger of violent agreement.

Tannar
26th Feb 2010, 06:04
I'll add my thumbs up also. Klatremus and Peter have clarified it perfectly and I concur.

Hexameron
26th Feb 2010, 23:18
We're all in agreement! :)

Tannar
26th Feb 2010, 23:28
Ok then, I have another question. This is something I've wondered about from time to time but keep forgetting to ask. What is the concensus on "turning off" light mushrooms? Does this violate rule # 6? In other words, is it property damage? I've always avoided doing it while ghosting, just in case, but I have always wondered about it.

Hexameron
27th Feb 2010, 00:55
I've often wondered about that myself, Tannar. I don't see it as property damage. I asked about it and deemed that it's not considered property damage in the possible amendments to ghost rules (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=98822&page=3) thread. I proposed the following (my changes in red):

B. Commentary and Interpretation of Ghost Rules

3. Property damage

"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). Light mushrooms that vanish when frobbed or struck and items that disappear from inventory or when used do not count as destroyed.

---

There may need to be a definition of "object" in order to understand this. After all, the fire emitting from a torch is an "object" in dromed, but we're allowed to douse and thus destroy it.

Tannar
27th Feb 2010, 02:51
Thanks, Hex. I either missed that ammendment of yours or forgot about it. I agree with you though.

uv6666
20th Jun 2016, 11:39
Sorry for reviving this old thread (but that's what happens after one takes up taffing again, after a long RL-induced pause). I post here a question from the TTLG forum. I hope someone still reads this thread :).

According to rule #5 for Supreme, "No Potions can be used at all". I understand (and agree with) the intention behind it, one should not "supreme" a mission by avoiding guards with invisibility potions, nor with impossible jumps and/or landings.

However, how about the holy water? The "natural" purpose of holy water is anyway prohibited by rule #3. However, creative usages do exist, like in FM Endless Rain, where a door, behind which some loot is found, is opened only by shooting a switch with a holy water arrow.

Because of this, the said mission is considered as "failing Perfect Supreme".

The usage or normal water arrows and moss arrows to dampen noise when shooting buttons, is however permitted as per §6c, with which I am fine. Why not adding a similar ammendment to §5, which would be btw. less questionable than §6c (some noise is dampened after all, it's just one not made by stepping; whereas "blessing" a switch like in Endless Rain has absolutely nothing to do with undead, and no "cheating" advantage is thus achieved).

Klatremus
15th Mar 2017, 02:47
Didn't see your post until now uv6666. I guess that says how much I prioritize this forum. I completely agree with your reasoning though. I think holy water vials should be allowed. The main reason being killing undead is already prohibited in rule #3, as you stated. Let's see if any of the moderators can chime in.

uv6666
15th Mar 2017, 11:39
finger crossed...