Feedback - Abandoned Property Excessive Theft

[Stonas]

Hello,

I would like to request feedback from the community on the rule for "Abandoned/Released" properties from excessive theft rules.

I believe the spirit behind the rule honestly was meant to allow folks to take anything they like from a truly unoccupied quarter, however, the way the rules are now, this is also endorsing players to organize mass thefts of fixtures based, I believe, on metagaming information of how the released quarters work, to organize mass thefts of truly occupied areas that's ownership is in flux because of the previous owner being rolled.

Currently, when a player rolls, it takes two weeks before the property goes for bid, and then a few days of bidding before the new owner can be selected. This is over half a month that other players could be forced to twiddle their thumbs and wait for the opportunity to reclaim ownership.

I believe that the rule should exist, however it should be changed to only include abandoned quarters, ones that have gone through their bidding process and nobody bid. The ones where when you click on the door, it says the property is for sale and the door just opens. If you have to break in through a door, it means the game tells you this property is "Occupied", and in my mind, is not an abandoned property. If you have to break in through a door, you should be help to the excessive theft rules.

Hope this feedback is well received, I look forward to hearing other POVs, and thank you all for reading.

Edited to make it sound less like a suggestion and more like feedback

[Aradin]

Agreed, and this is coming from someone currently playing a thief. If you have to break into a place, you should have to follow the theft rules in that place. I don't think it needs to get more complicated than that. Truly unoccupied quarters will be up on the bidding system and won't even have locked doors.

[Martian Mermaid]

Agreed, and this is coming from someone currently playing a thief. If you have to break into a place, you should have to follow the theft rules in that place. I don't think it needs to get more complicated than that. Truly unoccupied quarters will be up on the bidding system and won't even have locked doors.

Other way around, actually.

Quarters that are just "up for sale" have their doors opened to the public, and are covered by the theft rules.

Quarters that have been abandoned, or whose lease has lapsed, will have their door locks reset to the default but will remain locked and have to be broken into (easy to do with the default door DCs), and are not covered by the theft rules.

If your quarter/guildhouse is 'truly occupied' by an active faction or handful of individuals, but you know that the lease is going to lapse for one reason or another, you've got 7-14 days to move anything important or desirable out of that location into more secure storage elsewhere. If literally no one had access to your faction leader's quarter but them, then that's an IC consequence of the IC traits of the individual selected to lead said faction.

The theft rules are fine as they are, in my opinion. They provide a substantial amount of protection to property owners while providing strong restrictions on quarterbreakers and thieves, and cover a wide variety of situations. You just sometimes have to be more proactive in protecting really important property.

[Amateur Hour]

The current theft rules seem to be in place to prevent people from taking advantage of using unowned space in guildhouses for storage, which I think is good. There should never be an incentive to keep things unoccupied, every incentive to keep things occupied as much as possible.

This said, I think that the OOC messages when you enter places should be a lot clearer, and the combat-log OOC messages about theft you get when you open chests, pick up fixtures need to be updated to reflect the new rules. I wouldn't blame someone for breaking rules - or believing something to be a rulebreak - if they believed the in-game text was the truth.

[Stonas]

I can agree completely there should never be incentive to keep a quarter unowned, and I wouldn't want anything that did that. But while a quarter is in bidding, it's not just sitting unoccupied. It's closed off, inaccessible to any who's characters wouldn't break down or pick the lock on a door, while people who may really want to continue ownership have a bid in.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

this is valid, I think, barring some fringe cases I've had to deal with

[Cthuletta]

I'm of the mindset the door should be unlocked whether up for sale or for bid, purely because I hate winning a property, going inside, and finding out the layout is something that bothers my OCD (I hate you, ceiling beams.) or the fixture space is next to none, because I couldn't check beforehand.

As for the theft rules, I would agree on the property theft, just keep it once per 24/hours and the stuff there remains there until whoever owns it... well, owns what's inside of it.
As far as I'm aware, if nobody bids on a property at all, it goes into 'Buy Now', where you can just snatch it up immediately. In that case, I don't see why anything inside would be considered owned by anybody, if that makes sense?

[Sincra]

As it stands it makes sense in a couple ways, even if slightly backwards from the player perspective:

• A quarter that is being SOLD, ie, is retaining ownership, will be open for viewing. This means they retain the protection of their fixtures but let people have the opportunity to look around and see what could be done with the space.
• A quarter that is vacant is locked and encourages you to find individuals if not yourself to open it to see inside, this can be done legally (town leadership/guard/whatever) or in less legal but likely not illegal manners (lockpick/bash/self initative).

Both of the above have room for rp and creating some sense of the world being administered by other individuals or needing other players.
Also them not being the same means less confusion for players.

On fixture theft, it would make no sense to suddenly say vacant houses count as 1/day, if someone lost their property it is entirely down to the fact they did not renew it.
Ontop of this I have to point out this seems to be a presumptuous goal, it is making the following assumptions:

• That you know the circumstances by which the player lost it, ie, timed out, accident, not playing.
• That you know the player is still active despite no name on the door.
• That you know the property was even actively being used before hand.

These are things best left to DM's and not made an impossible to follow rule.

Outside extraneous circumstances that should be taken to DM's there is no reason to have players be beholden on the hope someone would win a property back or are active still.
As is that seems pretty much the only reason I can see this is a concern.

On that note:
If you are:

• not available to play for long periods of time
• tired of the game

You should probably just take your fixtures and release the property.

If you messed up and the lease slipped, then I'm sorry, that's a consequence and one that is important as an opportunity for others both material and property wise.

Addendums:
The title of this thread is misleading, one cannot steal something that is unowned!
Having it be dependant on quarters never bid on will likely mean it does not happen, so is a redundant point and needless complexity.
Finally, every property vacancy then becomes a dm report hotspot if changed, inundating them with something they never needed to look after except unique situations.

[DM Monkey]

Sincra pretty much has it as it's intended.

[Tabby]

So to be clear..

You can take fixtures and chest items from vacant room? And theft rules dont apply.

If set up as selling, rules of theft applies?

Sorry the post was long and i got confused in the progress for reading it

[DM Monkey]

If a quarter is owned (you’ll see the name on the sign of the owner) then theft rules apply. If the quarter is not owned (you won’t see the name on the sign) then it’s available to be ransacked.

Instead of threads like this which go through a lot of hypotheticals, it’s usually better to read: wiki.nwnarelith.com/rules

[Hazard]

There's also just the 'Be Nice' rule. Sometimes you will come across a quarter that has a lot of stuff, both items and fixtures.
It might be abandoned, and you might be "allowed" to take whatever you want because it's abandoned, but stop and ask yourself if this might be a shared space for a small group of friends/faction. Maybe taking everything that isn't bolted down before giving them a chance to relocate it, isn't the nicest thing to do.

I dunno. Not accusing anyone and it's not to do with any recent event. Just thought it's worth remembering not even all non-guild quarters are just inhabited by a single PC. I almost always give out keys to my all my PCs friends, just so that the space is more lively and used. There aren't enough properties on the server for everyone, so sharing is a good option.

[D4wN]

If a quarter is owned (you’ll see the name on the sign of the owner) then theft rules apply. If the quarter is not owned (you won’t see the name on the sign) then it’s available to be ransacked.

Instead of threads like this which go through a lot of hypotheticals, it’s usually better to read: wiki.nwnarelith.com/rules

Just to be clear, I was told something very very different by another DM. It would likely be good to simply have an overall agreement and explain the rule on the wiki simply.

What I was told is that if the lease is lapsed/abandoned (and thus unowned), it is still covered under the excessive theft rules. I was told this only a few weeks ago.

[whitewingeddove]

The wiki rules are pretty clear:

For Sale IS NOT abandoned. They are protected by the Excessive Theft Rules.
Released / Abandoned property is not protected by the Excessive Theft Rules.

If a quarter is in a bidding state due to being abandoned, it is not protected. Check the ownership sign if you are confused. If it is owned, the owner's name will be clearly stated.

I wouldn't want to make an new ruling saying that lapsed quarters in the bidding stage are protected against theft, because who would the theft be against if no one lives there?

I think Hazard makes a good point that in the case of lapsed properties, it is best to be mindful of communal/shared spaces that have some "inherent" sense of ownership out of good sportsmanship, but the argument will still stand that items in unowned places will not have near the level of protection as an owned space. (Note, this is advice and not official policy.) And in the case of owned properties where you have legitimate access (aka given access via key or faction setup), don't be a cheese and rob the place blind just because you can.

In summary, adhere to the clearly defined rules and be mindful of others.

[Aradin]

If I could suggest a slight change while we're on the topic, even though this is an aside: currently, the doors of abandoned/releases properties are locked. That means when you interact with them, you get the standard Arelith locked door interaction popup box, which begins with something like "This quarter is occupied." This is in contradiction to the property sign, which says the quarter is unowned. Maybe make the language of both door and sign match each other to reduce confusion. When in doubt, the sign is right, yes, but it seems like a needless extra step of possible confusion.

[Flower Power]

If a quarter is owned (you’ll see the name on the sign of the owner) then theft rules apply. If the quarter is not owned (you won’t see the name on the sign) then it’s available to be ransacked.

Instead of threads like this which go through a lot of hypotheticals, it’s usually better to read: wiki.nwnarelith.com/rules

Just to be clear, I was told something very very different by another DM. It would likely be good to simply have an overall agreement and explain the rule on the wiki simply.

What I was told is that if the lease is lapsed/abandoned (and thus unowned), it is still covered under the excessive theft rules. I was told this only a few weeks ago.

I mean, the rules have been pretty clearly posted on the wiki for quite some time now. Much longer than a few weeks.

Abandoned Quarters

• For Sale IS NOT abandoned. They are protected by the Excessive Theft Rules.
• Released / Abandoned property is not protected by the Excessive Theft Rules.

The only ambiguous part of the ruling is "For Sale vs. Abandoned". Other than that, it's usually a pretty good rule of thumb to just actually read the rules for anything you're going to invest this much time into.

[D4wN]

If a quarter is owned (you’ll see the name on the sign of the owner) then theft rules apply. If the quarter is not owned (you won’t see the name on the sign) then it’s available to be ransacked.

Instead of threads like this which go through a lot of hypotheticals, it’s usually better to read: wiki.nwnarelith.com/rules

Just to be clear, I was told something very very different by another DM. It would likely be good to simply have an overall agreement and explain the rule on the wiki simply.

What I was told is that if the lease is lapsed/abandoned (and thus unowned), it is still covered under the excessive theft rules. I was told this only a few weeks ago.

I mean, the rules have been pretty clearly posted on the wiki for quite some time now. Much longer than a few weeks.

Abandoned Quarters

• For Sale IS NOT abandoned. They are protected by the Excessive Theft Rules.
• Released / Abandoned property is not protected by the Excessive Theft Rules.

The only ambiguous part of the ruling is "For Sale vs. Abandoned". Other than that, it's usually a pretty good rule of thumb to just actually read the rules for anything you're going to invest this much time into.

Thanks yes. That wasn't my point. My point was that what a DM told me was that a lapsed lease property (I.e. unowned) was protected by excessive theft rules and a DM in here saying something different.

Also, there are a ton of rules. And people aren't perfect nor do many people have photographic memories. So to expect everyone to remember every single rule on this wiki is a little presumptuous.

[Biolab00]

Just to be clear, I was told something very very different by another DM. It would likely be good to simply have an overall agreement and explain the rule on the wiki simply.

What I was told is that if the lease is lapsed/abandoned (and thus unowned), it is still covered under the excessive theft rules. I was told this only a few weeks ago.

I mean, the rules have been pretty clearly posted on the wiki for quite some time now. Much longer than a few weeks.

Abandoned Quarters

• For Sale IS NOT abandoned. They are protected by the Excessive Theft Rules.
• Released / Abandoned property is not protected by the Excessive Theft Rules.

The only ambiguous part of the ruling is "For Sale vs. Abandoned". Other than that, it's usually a pretty good rule of thumb to just actually read the rules for anything you're going to invest this much time into.

Thanks yes. That wasn't my point. My point was that what a DM told me was that a lapsed lease property (I.e. unowned) was protected by excessive theft rules and a DM in here saying something different.

Also, there are a ton of rules. And people aren't perfect nor do many people have photographic memories. So to expect everyone to remember every single rule on this wiki is a little presumptuous.

I believe that the Theft rules for Unowned/Owned quarters are already stated extremely precise, and clearly in this particular forum topic post. Whilst your post may have the good intention to make sure all DMs have the same standard ruling as written in this forum post regarding the above questioned ruling, I believed that your intention has already been achieved because this forum topic post is the perfect example for any similar situations. There is no need for any DMs to respond otherwise to avoid awkwardness. Let us move on.

[DM Monkey]

Also, there are a ton of rules. And people aren't perfect nor do many people have photographic memories. So to expect everyone to remember every single rule on this wiki is a little presumptuous.

This is why people need to read the rules for themselves and not rely on interpretations of other players. Sometimes DMs are wrong or make mistakes and usually those are corrected. If you're ever in doubt, read the rules. They're very clear when it comes to quarters + theft.

[Tabby]

If a quarter is owned (you’ll see the name on the sign of the owner) then theft rules apply. If the quarter is not owned (you won’t see the name on the sign) then it’s available to be ransacked.

Instead of threads like this which go through a lot of hypotheticals, it’s usually better to read: wiki.nwnarelith.com/rules

That made sense, and alot more layman way of explaning thx.

And i will check the rules om the wiki (Just keep it updated)

[whitewingeddove]

Thanks yes. That wasn't my point. My point was that what a DM told me was that a lapsed lease property (I.e. unowned) was protected by excessive theft rules and a DM in here saying something different.

There must have been a misunderstanding. I reviewed the conversation in question, and that is not what was relayed to you. If you have questions about what was said, please contact me.

[Stonas]

Ontop of this I have to point out this seems to be a presumptuous goal, it is making the following assumptions:

• That you know the circumstances by which the player lost it, ie, timed out, accident, not playing.
• That you know the player is still active despite no name on the door.
• That you know the property was even actively being used before hand.

I'd just like to reply to this part real quick, you are assuming here that it be a single person using a quarter and it is actually abandoned. There are many reasons that make players share quarters. They could be a faction with a guild house, they could be a family who share the same quarters, they could be friends, who bunk together because of low availability of quarters, and probably many more reasons not coming to mind at the top of my mind.

Additionally, there are many reasons why the quarter, while still being in active use by one or more player, may laps and go to bidding. The player who actually owns the property could roll due to surprise RP, the player could have RL circumstances pop up where they are completely unavailable for a time, or permanently. This does not mean that the property is unoccupied. The permissions on the doors are retained until the new bidding is finalized, so anyone who had access prior to the owners absence can still be using the property as usual.

Let me paint a scenario, my understanding is Thomas Castemont owns both a noble estate as well as another property in the city I understand. If Thomas' player becomes suddenly unavailable for what ever reason, or what ever happens, then 2 weeks will pass with everything like normal until it goes into bidding. That bidding will last about 3 days, and during that time, anything at all in both the Noble estate and what ever other building he owns is now up for grabs by anyone who can break through the now easy to break security and take anything at all that was not moved behind owned doors. This means that during those 2 weeks the remaining players who all still actively use the areas, and have rights to the areas, will have to remove all decoration and everything they have done over the years and hope they can find areas with enough room to place everything until those 3 days are up and whoever wins next gets the ownership so they can go about replacing everything again. That is unless I am missing something, which is completely possible.

I mean, maybe there can be an inheritance system or something, though that seems like a lot of code work for a little gain tbh.

IDK, Like I said, this just seems off to me. I understand the reasoning behind it when it is a single quarter that is used by a single person, but just seems like there is a lot of room for grief.

[D4wN]

Thanks yes. That wasn't my point. My point was that what a DM told me was that a lapsed lease property (I.e. unowned) was protected by excessive theft rules and a DM in here saying something different.

There must have been a misunderstanding. I reviewed the conversation in question, and that is not what was relayed to you. If you have questions about what was said, please contact me.

Sure, I'll contact you

[Martian Mermaid]

Additionally, there are many reasons why the quarter, while still being in active use by one or more player, may laps and go to bidding. The player who actually owns the property could roll due to surprise RP, the player could have RL circumstances pop up where they are completely unavailable for a time, or permanently. This does not mean that the property is unoccupied. The permissions on the doors are retained until the new bidding is finalized, so anyone who had access prior to the owners absence can still be using the property as usual.

Property Theft
A Player / Party is permitted to steal one single item per day from Player Owned Property. No exception.
.
.
.
(etc.)

Abandoned Quarters
For Sale IS NOT abandoned. They are protected by the Excessive Theft Rules.
Released / Abandoned property is not protected by the Excessive Theft Rules

If you, the player, know that a character is rolled/shelved/the other player has IRL/etc. it is your responsibility to move valuable items to a secure location while the bidding process happens. If you have a key to a quarter, you can move as many items as necessary out. Is it cumbersome? Yeah. But it prevents theft. There are other quarters/bank vaults/inventory places fixtures can temporarily go to.

If the property is abandoned, it's free-for-all. This is well stipulated in the rules that all players should read and be familiar with before they play Arelith.

[Stonas]

If the property is abandoned, it's free-for-all. This is well stipulated in the rules that all players should read and be familiar with before they play Arelith.

I get what the rules are, sadly myself and even some veterans were confused about them, but it is what it is.

I am discussing feedback of the rules and trying to see in what ways they might be enhanced is all.