Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

You have questions? We may have answers.

Moderators: Active DMs, Forum Moderators

CNS
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:29 pm

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by CNS » Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:50 am

Its just a sucky experience. I've been robbed a bunch of times never had any positive RP experience from it.

But even if you leave clues (either forced or not) what then? I can kill bash the person that broke in (assuming they ever log in outside house breaking) and... what? I strongly believe the type of person that makes that kind of house breaker isn't the sort to suddenly offer some curtesy beyond what's mechanically enforced and gives you your stuff back once caught.

Fixture theft is also real and equally ridiculous. Often when robbed you don't REALLY care about the 20,000 gold value of whatever got taken, you care about the in world meaning of items and/or the time and effort and what your character went through to get them. Fixtures often very much go into that category of high personal meaning as well as time and effort to get the quarter looking how they want.

Also the amount of times someone has 'stealthily' stolen a 8ft high by 6ft wide bookcase and walked past numerous NPCs is ridiculous.

The only positive RP experience I've had with house breaking came from a character that I've recently learned (OOCLY) couldn't even break into houses. I think that says it all.

the grim yeeter
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:47 pm

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by the grim yeeter » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:50 am

Scurvy Cur wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 5:23 pm
And yes, I'm entirely in favor of an environment in which looting quarters for items/fixtures is impossible. It remains, perplexingly, the one form of PvP in which no face-to-face interaction is required beforehand. I'm not sure why breaking into someone's quarter and removing their GP with no roleplay beyond leaving a note that says "haha thx for ur stuff" is ok, but breaking into someone's face and removing their HP with no roleplay beyond leaving a note that says "haha thx for ur skull" isn't.
This.

There is absolutely nothing good or fun about quarter-looting (or PvP thievery in general, really), and I have a hard time comprehending people who dislike combat PvP so much, but are in favour of thievery PvP, while the latter is, chiefly, more toxic and griefy, and principally yields significantly less (and often simply none) roleplay than the former. Perhaps these people prefer it because there is no chance of losing, whereas in combat PvP there is?

And I say this despite almost never having a quarter on any of my characters, nor have I noticed items of significant value suddenly missing from my inventory. I go mostly by the times I've been told by others during which it happened to them.

One of the few instances that I do recall where something had been stolen from my character's quarter, some standard, bland note (that the player would leave in every quarter that they stole from) was left behind, which gave me no other option than to go "ok", continue what I was doing, and be annoyed by the lack of creativity and the fact that I had to gather a stack of a few dozens of some cooking ingredient again.
Sockss wrote: There is an overriding premise that all changes should be appreciated and welcomed because someone has taken time out for free to make them. [...] I don't believe volunteering should put your work above criticism [...] .

User avatar
Scurvy Cur
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by Scurvy Cur » Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:43 pm

GrumpyCat, thank you for posting.

While I'd like to engage with all of your comments soon, time's a little limited right now, so I'll engage with what I think is probably the most important.
The GrumpyCat wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:17 pm
4) It's generally not IC to activly leave clues ect to reveal who your character is, in the vast majority of thefts. In fact often it really /isn't/ IC to leave any 'clues' at all, especialy when linked to 3. Your jolly thief of Brandaboras might want to say, leave a riddle to reveal where he put Billy's golden statue of Sharess, but why would your Maskarran ever be interested in being caught? There's been a bit of critisism about this - people stealing items and not leaving any rp for it , and I do get it, but on the other hand - can you blame them?
I absolutely can blame them.

We routinely require people who engage in PvP activities to do things that do not make any IC sense at all/surrender an IC advantage, because it's just not fun for the other party otherwise.

1) Combat PvP - It makes no sense for any character who has already determined that they wish to engage in pvp to first interact with their target. The chance of losing goes way, way down if you just attack from stealth or invis without warning, and I'm pretty sure that every single character in existence knows that hostile interaction before the PvP is likely to put the opponent on guard and turn an effortless murder into a challenging fight. We've even decided that allowing guild assassins to attack their targets without first interactively roleplaying with them was a mistake, and have since implemented a requirement for hostile roleplay sometime in the 24h period before the attack takes place.

For example, imagine that you are playing a Banite who has just been ordered by his superiors to walk into a settlement and kill someone who has been blaspheming the faith. You know that the target is likely to flee or fight back if they are warned, but should be a pretty easy kill if you just go in hasted and attack from invis. You know further that escape of the target or defeat at their hands will be a failure, and your faith does not treat failure well. The fully IC thing for you to do is to attack without warning and with as little chance given to the other party to respond as possible. There is, furthermore, plenty of RP surrounding the attack (you've been ordered to go deal with a religious blasphemer, and have probably RPed a lot with your faction buddies on the topic); it's just not RP with the victim.

Yet, we do not allow this character to proceed with a wordless sneak attack, and for good reason. Instead, we require that they do something which makes no IC sense, but which we have determined is more likely to be fun/feel fair to all involved. They must interact first with their target. They must roleplay a little with them (and per recent DM team statements, the roleplay cannot be a banal "Hi how are you, nice weather today", but must instead convey some level of hostility) prior to the PvP. And if the character decides to "just do what is IC", we punish the player for breaking the rules. We do this because, over the long life of this server, we've decided that simply "be IC about your PvP" is not enough. It carries too much risk of PvP that, while it might make sense from a narrative standpoint, does not offer the target any roleplay beyond a quick trip to the fugue.

2) Exile - Similarly, it often does not make sense to deliver IC notice of exile to characters in a face-to-face fashion. Many times, exile is used to kick people with a violent history out of settlements, because it no longer makes sense for those settlements to allow those characters to remain. Like property eviction, however, delivering an exile in person both a) requires the sometimes-challenging task of personally tracking down an exile target, who may for reasons of timezone mismatch, intentional evasion, or simply the fact that they often roleplay in different places than those seeking to exile them, be difficult to reach; and b) carries a risk
that the character to be exiled will respond with violence.

From a purely IC standpoint, it makes little sense for a character to put themselves through the trouble or risk of finding a person they intend to exile to tell them to their face. The much safer and more ICly prudent response is simply to go to whichever settlement NPC handles exiles and implement the exile. We have determined, however, that this is a PvP action which requires interactive roleplay first, and that the interactive roleplay must be conducted by the person issuing the exile, must be in person, and must unambiguously mention the exile.

Why?

Because we've seen the following behavior from people delivering exiles:

a) Exile completely without roleplay.
b) Exile notification delivered through a powerful pvp intermediary who nonetheless is not the one administering the exile.
c) Exile notification delivered by speedy messenger/illusion messenger/goblin messenger

And we have determined that, no matter how much IC sense any of these approaches might make in any given exile situation, and no matter how much roleplay supports it on the part of the parties delivering the exile, it is unfair to and unfun for the target of the exile to be treated this way. And so we require people imposing an exile to do something that sometimes makes no IC sense

Example: Varith Fletcher was exiled multiple times from multiple settlements, often either with no interaction, or an interaction that did not mention exile even a bit. These settlements often had very good reason to do so, and very good reasons to avoid personally confronting him about it. It was fully IC for them simply to implement the exile without ever going near someone who very well might kill them over it. The DM team overturned multiple exiles imposed in this fashion, entirely regardless of the very good amount of IC sense that it made to impose them. Why? Because it deprived the exile target of roleplay.

3) Property Eviction - It likewise makes no IC sense for people to hold off on property eviction until face to face contact has been had. Once the decision has been reached to evict someone from city property, it makes full IC sense for the evicting party simply to proceed: the process of tracking down someone who may suspect that they are about to be evicted can be a challenging task, since they may do their best to make themselves hard to approach. Furthermore, since losing one's home/shop can be a serious blow to players for much the same reason as losing a prized item that they worked hard to obtain, property evictions sometimes lead to pvp and the death of the evictor. And sometimes the purpose of the eviction, IC, is to secure property for your friends and supporters; ICly, your character has no interest in being "fair" or "sportsmanlike" about the eviction.

Given the amount of effort that tracking down an evictee can sometimes take, and the danger that delivering notice in person can sometimes require, often the most sensible IC option is simply to release the property without any interaction at all. We don't allow this. Instead, we require that eviction notices be: a) accompanied by interactive roleplay; b) conducted in person; and c) made by the person actually making the eviction.

Why? Because at some point, people have decided that it was fully IC to:

a) Evict completely without roleplay.
b) Deliver eviction notice by speedy messenger/illusion messenger/goblin messenger
c) Have a subordinate without eviction powers, who may not be known to the eviction target "ambush" the target with notice.

So, no matter how much IC sense it makes for a character simply to evict without first providing some interactive roleplay to the target, we require a modicum of interactive roleplay in the first place.

The only exception to this requirement is when the DM team decides that a player is purposefully avoiding contact to make eviction as difficult as possible, and in this case the DM team handles the property release themselves.


You may ask why your Maskarran would risk getting caught. I would ask in turn why a Banite would risk failure or a Cyricist would risk defeat by letting their opponent know what is coming for them, or why the mayor who has been killed before by Varith Fletcher would risk dying again to exile him when he could just safely do so without interaction. It's generally not IC to interactively roleplay with the victim in those case either. The answer in all cases is: because we have decided that it is desirable to require such characters to surrender part of their advantage to facilitate more satisfying RP for their victims.

Why do we not have any such requirement for the burglar?

tl;dr summary: We have long since come to the determination that PvP action without interactive roleplay is not good because it is grossly unfair to and unfun for the victim, no matter how IC it is. Adequate guarantees that the victim gets something in the way of RP out of the interaction has been built into every pvp system we have.

Except quarter theft and pickpocketing.
If you're playing a character or acting as a player that mistakes principle for intransigence, you never wanted a Roleplay server.
Invader_Nym wrote: I don't understand how I can lose functionality buying an update that's supposed to be optimized for modern hardware.

CNS
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:29 pm

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by CNS » Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:52 pm

I'm it's current state a script that runs once a month and has a 5% chance or deleting 1 item in your chest is an improvement over the current state of things.

You get the same amount of interaction and lose less stuff.

User avatar
strong yeet
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by strong yeet » Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:48 pm

tl;dr summary: We have long since come to the determination that PvP action without interactive roleplay is not good because it is grossly unfair to and unfun for the victim, no matter how IC it is. Adequate guarantees that the victim gets something in the way of RP out of the interaction has been built into every pvp system we have.

Except quarter theft and pickpocketing.
Basically this.
Skibbles wrote: Drow are no longer allowed to have pet cats. The team has decided that fuzzy and cute isn't part of the vision we have for drow on Arelith. Drow with cats will be warned, or banned, depending on the luxuriousness of their illegal cat's coat.

User avatar
Scylon
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:49 am

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by Scylon » Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:22 am

I see a lot of the discussion is around peoples homes. I think it's more an issue around dungeons. Its seriously baseline to take 1 open lock and 1 disable trap. You can gear the rest of it with no issues. I think the whole system needs to be redesigned to add value into putting actual points in it vs just slapping on items when the need arises. The only way to do that (especially in the dungeon space) is to rebuild how you acquire loot.

Add multi solutions to issues that don't just require a locksmith:-
So some loot needs a lockpicker, some requires strength, Some requires high intellect or wisdom etc. And you can't get everything (or even the best loot) with out 3 or more. This would promote people to form groups because you can't get past certain places without a mixed team. Also if you had some seriously awesome loot behind locks, high intel, wisdom, con etc etc etc

Remove the ability to gear for lockpicking/disable traps:-
Doing the above would completely change the idea of locks and dungeon progression in the game. Right now the gear is just so anyone and everyone can do content and get the chest at the end open. Sadly, lock pickers aren't always available and bashing isn't an option because the server destroys the loot if you do that. If loot could be obtained with a wisdom check for example behind door A, or strength in chest B it rewards people for playing a certain class without forcing them to carry a lockpicking and trap disarm set.

Tweak DCs to be more realistic:-
Across the board you would then want to make all DCs different numbers. Rewarding pure locking picking/trap disarming masters, however letting people who dabble still profit from it.

Regarding Player homes:-
Just make the chests unpickable and make the doors more realistic in DC. You could add "hot points" in the homes for them to use slight of hand. These points would just take gold directly from the players bank (can make the amounts based on players worth vs thieves skill). No items would be lost, the thieves would get something and you could even add an anti theft system or REAL use of traps. So if you die on a trap in my house, well that is the risk you run braking in there.

Finding Thieves:-
You would need a Crime point/detect system. So if you break into a home AND steal something you would leave something like tracks. The reason it is based on the fact you stole something is because just breaking in for RP purposes (spying) would be metaed bad if it instantly left something saying you were/are in there).
So the system would be the thieves skills vs a detection heavy character. so the more you do it, the more clues that build up till eventually details start coming out. Size, Race, Class etc all leading up to eventually your name. Could add that to some crime metric the sticks with the player till they are captured or what not. Not sure from that point on.

-XXX-
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 am

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by -XXX- » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:48 am

Eh, quarter robbing is a headache inducing issue. It's probably a good habit to store all valuable property in the bank and only ever use the quarter storage for disposable items.
:arrow: as outlined by Scurvy Cur, it seems to be exempt from the usual rules and/or social contract often associated with other forms of PvP activities.
:arrow: even in the exceptionally rare instance of the thieves being identified and found, there's no way of making them return the stolen property.

At this point, the only retort that the victim of a quarter robbery has is to file a DM report in the odd case that rules were actually broken in the process, but in either case the stolen items are gone forever.

User avatar
The GrumpyCat
Community Manager
Community Manager
Posts: 3737
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by The GrumpyCat » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:54 am

Here's an interesting theoretical question - and I'd be very, very, very much appreciative if people who would like to sort of play this concept, and see quarter stealing happening more often - would be honest in their responses here...

If the above to points - thieves being impossible to track down, and items being very difficult to return - were not true, would do you still think you'd be eager to do it?

Pulling a random example out of my head. Let's say that with an -investigate roll, someone with high spot could tell exactly (knew the name of) the person who had stolen the item, and then with say uh... the 'Billy Club' item, could use it to bop said thief and retrieve the item, would you be ok with that?

Would that mean you just wouldn't do it?

Would you take as many steps as possible to avoid t his happening? (Maxing out bluff to the extreme, and putting stolen items in citizen storage for example.)
This too shall pass.

(I now have a DM Discord (I hope) It's DM GrumpyCat#7185 but please keep in mind I'm very busy IRL so I can't promise how quick I'll get back to you.)

Seven Sons of Sin
Posts: 1989
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by Seven Sons of Sin » Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:13 am

In a world of timezones, RL commitments, and juggling playing schedules -

I really sometimes ask: are there just types of roleplay that are not conducive to a persistent-world, multiplayer environment?

I would say "yes."

I think theft falls into that.

Even if you can -investigate, even if the other person drops clues, even if their is benevolence all around, you might just never ever see them again. They might have to go on a vacation. You might have to play more erratically.

Theft roleplay requires a prolonged conflict to find any kind of resolution (whether the victim regains their stolen goods, or the thief escapes/eludes). This isn't good or ideal.

Theft imho should be restricted to only on-person items. This mandates interaction, and means any outcome at least had a shared experience.
Previous:
Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil

Hinty
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:03 am

Re: Is Open Lock/Disable Trap basically redundant? Or am I mistaken

Post by Hinty » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:15 am

I think maybe a slightly, and I really do mean slightly, better option might be to remove the ability to steal from quarters, and perhaps put some NPC houses into the game that can be broken into.

As things stand there is almost 0 capability for thievery RP outside of pick pocketing (which almost always results in you getting killed if spotted) or the affor mentioned quarter robbery.

A few houses with a chest or two in with some gold, maybe some hostile house guards for more upmarket houses.

Sure, a character with high skills will be able to farm them for free gold, but it at least gives thieves SOMETHING to do.

Post Reply