Quartertheft

[Dr. B]

I can practically guarantee you that players breaking in, interacting, killing their victim and *then* taking a high value item is going to result in more disgruntlement and complaints than the status quo. I think the primary reason people are mad about theft is that they don't want their expensive stuff being stolen, not because of the lack of interaction. The latter may add insult to injury, but the source of the injury is that they want to keep their stuff. Maybe the solution is as simple as putting a script in place that restricts quartertheft to items below a certain value, or of a certain kind.

Believe me, it's going to be the rare player who thinks it's a fair arrangement when their quarter gets broken into by some buffed up thief and then killed after they exchange dialogue, then have their 95% crafted MDamask bastard sword stolen. Expect a huge uptick in DM complaints and private Discord shittalking if that becomes the norm. Heck, you might as well just make a new Arelith 8chan.

On another note, it restricts quarter theft to evil characters.

[Zavandar]

I can practically guarantee you that players breaking in, interacting, killing their victim and *then* taking a high value item is going to result in more disgruntlement and complaints than the status quo. I think the primary reason people are mad about theft is that they don't want their expensive stuff being stolen, not because of the lack of interaction. The latter may add insult to injury, but the source of the injury is that they want to keep their stuff. Maybe the solution is as simple as putting a script in place that restricts quartertheft to items below a certain value, or of a certain kind.

Believe me, it's going to be the rare player who thinks it's a fair arrangement when their quarter gets broken into by some buffed up thief and then killed after they exchange dialogue, then have their 95% crafted MDamask bastard sword stolen. Expect a huge uptick in DM complaints and private Discord shittalking if that becomes the norm.

people that wanted to do this already can. why aren't they?

[Shadowy Reality]

some stuff

Strawman much?

That's not the argument I advanced at all, but I guess I can give you a hand.

What I said was that the guy who actively confronts his victim, perhaps kills them, and then takes an item, is preferable to the guy who goes in to steal from players who are logged out. Several reasons:

1) The guy who actively confronts the victim does not have the option to leave no clues. He gets seen. He interacts. There's face to face back and forth. Call this the "better bare minumum" rationale. While someone probably could, if they wanted to, make the quarte break interesting, we don't presently require it. Phrase your question another way: does the guy who breaks in, kills, loots, and leave have any way to do that without involving the victim in some way? Answer: no, not without violating the rules of engagement.

2) The guy who tries to actively confront, kills, loots, and leaves takes a risk. He might lose. He might get recognized even if he wins. There's a confrontation involved which could conceivably go either way. This is, categorically, preferable to the current quarter break system, which is fundamentally risk-free. We have, in fact, had observations to this effect from members of the admin team along the lines of "I can see why players would break in when nobody's around and leave no clues. It's a needless risk to do anything else."

3) As other posters have noted, my ability to make stuff interesting has really no bearing on what we ought to set as our minimum standard requirement for players. We don't write rules with the best and most considerate players in mind. We write them to constrain the rude, inconsiderate, mean, and thoughtless. You don't require RP before theft because it's impossible to make theft fun for the victim, you require it because it's too easy (and in fact, too optimal) to do the opposite. Similarly, we have the "RP interactively before pvp" rule not because people can't make PvP fun and interactive, but because it's too easy (and in fact, too optimal) to offer as little RP as possible to the victim; something I would think you, of all people, would understand, what with how visibly upset I recall you getting in the past over being killed with RP you felt was insufficient.

I agree with most of this. But death and theft are very different things. If your PC, or PCs in general get things stolen from them often the setting and RP in general hold. If your PC, or all PCs die every 24 hours then it is hard to maintain any sort of coherent RP. "John just keeps getting things stolen from his chest." is very different from "John just keeps dying, he's always dying."

I know the rules aren't written with the best as a standard. The standards are low. But we can raise the standard for quartertheft. We can require the thief to leave something, anything.

Everyone is encouraged to report if they face PvP they weren't really satisfied with. People who repeatedly do the bare minimum will be punished. What I don't understand is why we are trying to go a different route with quartertheft. Instead changing the rules slightly to increase the bare minimum and reporting bad occurrences, we are just trying to eliminate it in its current form entirely.

[Dr. B]

I can practically guarantee you that players breaking in, interacting, killing their victim and *then* taking a high value item is going to result in more disgruntlement and complaints than the status quo. I think the primary reason people are mad about theft is that they don't want their expensive stuff being stolen, not because of the lack of interaction. The latter may add insult to injury, but the source of the injury is that they want to keep their stuff. Maybe the solution is as simple as putting a script in place that restricts quartertheft to items below a certain value, or of a certain kind.

Believe me, it's going to be the rare player who thinks it's a fair arrangement when their quarter gets broken into by some buffed up thief and then killed after they exchange dialogue, then have their 95% crafted MDamask bastard sword stolen. Expect a huge uptick in DM complaints and private Discord shittalking if that becomes the norm.

people that wanted to do this already can. why aren't they?

Who want to do what? Kill players in addition to taking their stuff? There could be many reasons. The ones I just mentioned might be some of them. Why does it matter?

[Zavandar]

I can practically guarantee you that players breaking in, interacting, killing their victim and *then* taking a high value item is going to result in more disgruntlement and complaints than the status quo. I think the primary reason people are mad about theft is that they don't want their expensive stuff being stolen, not because of the lack of interaction. The latter may add insult to injury, but the source of the injury is that they want to keep their stuff. Maybe the solution is as simple as putting a script in place that restricts quartertheft to items below a certain value, or of a certain kind.

Believe me, it's going to be the rare player who thinks it's a fair arrangement when their quarter gets broken into by some buffed up thief and then killed after they exchange dialogue, then have their 95% crafted MDamask bastard sword stolen. Expect a huge uptick in DM complaints and private Discord shittalking if that becomes the norm.

people that wanted to do this already can. why aren't they?

Who want to do what? Kill players in addition to taking their stuff? Could be many reasons. The ones I just mentioned might be some of them. Why does it matter?

it is currently ALREADY PERMITTED to quarterbreak into a house with somebody in it, rp with them, kill them, and then take something.

[Dr. B]

it is currently ALREADY PERMITTED to quarterbreak into a house with somebody in it, rp with them, kill them, and then take something.

I'm gonna try my hand at writing in all caps. Is it as effective as the people who do it seem to think it is?

YOU ARE MAKING A FALSE EQUIVALENCE.

THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN BEING PERMITTED AND REQUIRED.

SINCE IT'S NOT REQUIRED, VIRTUALLY NO PEOPLE DO IT.

IF IT WERE REQUIRED, MORE PEOPLE WOULD DO IT.

IF MORE PEOPLE DID IT, THEN IT WOULD RESULT IN VICTIMS BEING EVEN MORE UPSET THAN THEY ARE NOW, FOR THE REASONS I'VE EXPLAINED.

[Zavandar]

Who want to do what? Kill players in addition to taking their stuff? Could be many reasons. The ones I just mentioned might be some of them. Why does it matter?

it is currently ALREADY PERMITTED to quarterbreak into a house with somebody in it, rp with them, kill them, and then take something.

I'm gonna try my hand at writing in all caps.

YOU ARE MAKING A FALSE EQUIVALENCE.

THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN BEING PERMITTED AND REQUIRED.

SINCE IT'S NOT REQUIRED, VIRTUALLY NO PEOPLE DO IT.

IF IT WERE REQUIRED, MORE PEOPLE WOULD DO IT.

IF MORE PEOPLE DID IT, THEN IT WOULD RESULT IN VICTIMS BEING EVEN MORE UPSET THAN THEY ARE NOW, FOR THE REASONS I'VE EXPLAINED.

please don't be rude

if you think that more people would do it if it was required, then that speaks to your opinion of the type of RP quarterbreakers generate

to which i ask, why are you defending it?

[Dr. B]

Well friend, you don't have to allcaps me in the first place. It's kind of rude to begin with, as I'm trying to show through my reply.

Regarding your argument, you're making another false equivalence. There's a difference between the level of anger quartertheft arouses and the level of anger I predict that a system that makes PvP + quartertheft virtually mandatory would arouse. In the former case a person loses their item. In the latter case a person has to respawn and loses their item.

Also, you are now making contradictory claims. As I read you, you support Scurvy's view that PvP before theft is better than theft without interaction. And yet in your last post you allowed that it would be no worse than the current system (which I disagree with, but is beside the point). If you're against theft without RP, and you concede that theft + PvP is just as likely to make people unhappy, then by your own lights, you should not be in favor of Scurvy's suggestion.

Also, my comment was less an indictment of the RP of quarterbreakers than of how people on the server tend to deal with losing PvP encounters, regardless of whether the prior RP was good or not (they generally don't react well).

Lastly, you've claimed that I'm defending the current system. That is a strawperson argument. I proposed an alternative paradigm, which is to mechanically restrict theft to items of lower value. For example, you can take someone's portal lense but not their Masterly Damask weapons. This is because, as people here have demonstrated through their complaints, much of the ire that revolves around quartertheft revolves around the loss of high-value items.

[Wrips]

If your character is being mechanicaly affected for little to no IC impact, I think it's understandable why most people dislike the current theft rules and/or mechanics.

Currently, for exemple, to be a victim of theft and lose a t3 rune is just similar to be walking around with your character and have a large sum deducted from your bank account for no reason at all.

[Zavandar]

Well friend, you don't have to allcaps me in the first place. It's kind of rude to begin with, as I'm trying to show through my reply.

Regarding your argument, you're making another false equivalence. There's a difference between the level of anger quartertheft arouses and the level of anger I predict that a system that makes PvP + quartertheft virtually mandatory would arouse. In the former case a person loses their item. In the latter case a person has to respawn and loses their item.

Also, you are now making contradictory claims. As I read you, you support Scurvy's view that PvP before theft is better than theft without interaction. And yet in your last post you allowed that it would be no worse than the current system (which I disagree with, but is beside the point). If you're against theft without RP, and you concede that theft + PvP is just as likely to make people happy, then by your own lights, you should not be in favor of Scurvy's suggestion.

Also, my comment was less an indictment of the RP of quarterbreakers than of how people on the server tend to deal with losing PvP encounters, regardless of whether the prior RP was good or not (they generally don't react well).

Lastly, you've claimed that I'm defending the current system. That is a strawperson argument. I proposed an alternative paradigm, which is to mechanically restrict theft to items of lower value. For example, you can take someone's portal lense but not their Masterly Damask weapons. This is because, as people here have demonstrated through their complaints, much of the ire that revolves around quartertheft revolves around the loss of high-value items.

okay so i get that you understand fallacious terms but you don't seem really able to apply them to yourself.

limiting theft to requiring rp (even if it would have pvp) is better than having that + no rp, victim is logged out, quartertheft.

i am asking why you are defending it because you seem to be fine with it.

[The GrumpyCat]

But.. single thieves will generally not risk that sort of pvp, which involves both pre warning of their presence (hence negating sneak attack ect) and also the simple fact that it's a fair fight.

ERgo generally it'll make sense to get into a quarter as a group. Now, in all fairness, his could be a huge boon for thieves guilds, and besides if one enters via picking the lock then often having a team is neccesary.

Also as a group you can steal more items over all. Rather than one item, it could be two, or three for example.

So even from a standpoint of 'quarter theft is always bad' I'm... really failing to see the positive here. Because the people that sneak into your quarter to steal items leaving absolutly zero rp at all, probably coincide pretty closely (though I will grant likely not entirely) with the people who'll enter your home with large murder squads - all disguised, to kill you and do the same with only a 'Hello, look who's calling!'

And whilst of course the above is entirely possible now - by making it the /only/ pheasable option for theft, I can't see that it'll help.

I'll add too - I've been playing this game for over ten years, and I can count the amount of times my pc has had their quarter robbed on one hand. (actually I can only remember once when they've been robbed, but I'm willing to guess that It has happened more than that and it just left so little impact I don't remember.) This isn't something we get much in the way of reports about. It isn't something I see that often when Dming. This isn't something that I've actually heard complaints of that often. And with the new bard changes, I understand it's actually become slightly MORE difficult to steal from quarters. So I just... I don't see it?

[Dr. B]

I disagree that theft without RP is better than requiring mandatory RP before theft. As GrumpyCat explained, this is highly likely to result in just about everyone who gets stolen from getting killed as well. My sense is that this will make victims of theft angrier than they are now, because having to respawn *and* losing your high value items, regardless of whether there is RP beforehand, is likely to be more upsetting to the majority of people than losing an item and not having to respawn. Can you explain why this is preferable to the current system? You've stated that several times without argument.

I'm defending non-interaction quartertheft because (1) I don't see a particularly serious problem with people being allowed to take items of lower value from chests without prior interaction (as per my proposal), just as I don't see a problem with people being allowed to pickpocket gold without prior interaction, which the current system allows and with which nobody here seems to take vehement issue; and (2) because the stealthy thief trope is a staple of this kind of setting that people should be allowed to play; as long as it doesn't ruin a reasonable person's enjoyment, it should be fine, and a script that restricts quartertheft to lower value items can help prevent that outcome.

I don't believe that the lack of interaction is the primary reason most people are upset by quarterthefts. It's the loss of expensive items that is upsetting to most people. Almost all of the people who have complained about it here have referred to the loss of high value items--some person's Rune Axe, someone's T3 dweomercrafting project, etc. This is not a coincidence. It's disingenuous to suggest that the lack of interaction is solely the root of why people are upset.

So, again, I proposed a script that mechanically prevents people from taking high value items from chests. If someone's Arelith experience is ruined because a portal lens or sapphire got stolen from their chest, they care about this game too much and need to achieve some psychological distance from it.

[Zavandar]

But.. single thieves will generally not risk that sort of pvp, which involves both pre warning of their presence (hence negating sneak attack ect) and also the simple fact that it's a fair fight.

ERgo generally it'll make sense to get into a quarter as a group. Now, in all fairness, his could be a huge boon for thieves guilds, and besides if one enters via picking the lock then often having a team is neccesary.

Also as a group you can steal more items over all. Rather than one item, it could be two, or three for example.

So even from a standpoint of 'quarter theft is always bad' I'm... really failing to see the positive here. Because the people that sneak into your quarter to steal items leaving absolutly zero rp at all, probably coincide pretty closely (though I will grant likely not entirely) with the people who'll enter your home with large murder squads - all disguised, to kill you and do the same with only a 'Hello, look who's calling!'

And whilst of course the above is entirely possible now - by making it the /only/ pheasable option for theft, I can't see that it'll help.

I'll add too - I've been playing this game for over ten years, and I can count the amount of times my pc has had their quarter robbed on one hand. (actually I can only remember once when they've been robbed, but I'm willing to guess that It has happened more than that and it just left so little impact I don't remember.) This isn't something we get much in the way of reports about. It isn't something I see that often when Dming. This isn't something that I've actually heard complaints of that often. And with the new bard changes, I understand it's actually become slightly MORE difficult to steal from quarters. So I just... I don't see it?

if you can't see that it'll help, then maybe it ought to not be something that's permitted. reducing an avenue of RPless pvp (quarterthieving while someone is offline) isn't going to hurt anyone. if you think that your own playerbase that you manage will just resort to pvping people more, then shouldn't you recognize that people that want to steal are more interested in stealing than interacting?

[Zavandar]

I disagree that theft without RP is better than requiring mandatory RP before theft. As GrumpyCat explained, this is highly likely to result in just about everyone who gets stolen from getting killed as well. My sense is that this will make victims of theft angrier than they are now, because having to respawn *and* losing your high value items, regardless of whether there is RP beforehand, is likely to be more upsetting to the majority of people than losing an item and not having to respawn. Can you explain why this is preferable to the current system? You've stated that several times without argument.

I'm defending non-interaction quartertheft because (1) I don't see a particularly serious problem with people being allowed to take items of lower value from chests without prior interaction (as per my proposal), just as I don't see a problem with people being allowed to pickpocket gold without prior interaction, which the current system allows and with which nobody here seems to take vehement issue; and (2) because the stealthy thief trope is a staple of this kind of setting that people should be allowed to play; as long as it doesn't ruin a reasonable person's enjoyment, it should be fine, and a script that restricts quartertheft to lower value items can help prevent that outcome.

I don't believe that the lack of interaction is the primary reason most people are upset by quarterthefts. It's the loss of expensive items that is upsetting to most people. Almost all of the people who have complained about it here have referred to the loss of high value items--some person's Rune Axe, someone's T3 dweomercrafting project, etc. This is not a coincidence. It's disingenuous to suggest that the lack of interaction is solely the root of why people are upset.

So, again, I proposed a script that mechanically prevents people from taking high value items from chests. If someone's Arelith experience is ruined because a portal lens or sapphire got stolen from their chest, they care about this game too much and need to achieve some psychological distance from it.

people have also complained of fixtures and items of sentimental value being taken. even with the rune-axe, it was over sentiment--not value.

also, if someone's arelith experience is ruined because they don't get to steal from people without any rp, they care about this game too much and need to achieve some psychological distance from it.

see what i did there?

[Dr. B]

Not really, because there's a distinction in degree between completely disallowing a certain character archetype that many people want to play, and losing a sapphire.

[Zavandar]

Not really, because there's a distinction in degree between completely disallowing a certain character archetype that many people want to play, and losing a sapphire.

there is also a distinction between roleplaying with somebody and not roleplaying with somebody.

[DM Rex]

At this point, this serves little more than room to vent over present observed and perceived behaviors of other players. Ultimately theft is allowed. Roleplay is expected for thefts, be them fixtures or chest items.

If more than one item is taken, we recommend reporting this to the Active DM group via PM.
If no roleplay was given at all, the above direction is recommended.

If there are to be any amendments to the rule discussed, it will be announced, but as per Irongron's ruling, the ability to do so remains a valid part of play. And will be treated as such with the requirements intended.

[The GrumpyCat]

Hello.

I had composed this message to provide some alternative insight to the discussion going on in "Quarterthief" viewtopic.php?f=37&t=31795 . However, the thread was locked around 15 minutes before I managed to get it fully written.

(GrumpyCat is positing it here then relocking the thread, because I thought the post was interesting, and it felt fair)


Below is what I had written.

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

Alright. This may be an unpopular opinion, but I do play Thieves.

I have had about 3 different characters that could (in theory) break into quarters, though only one has actually reached max level and did steal only 1 time (from Radiant Heart, a note was left in the boards to "thank for the donation", including a real PC name to send the blame to). I no longer play said character because their personality turned out wrong as result of neglecting RP in effort to grind levels, but that's another story.

I do not play Thieves because I want to hurt people. I find the archtype interesting and I want to build roleplay around it. Building a Thieve's Guild, Auction of Stolen Items, Art Forgery, Group Pickpocketing with RP, Shady Dealings. That type of things.

At the same time I am extremely aware of the rule "Be Nice".

I have been part of a faction that had something stolen from. The Leader was very upset OOC and tightened the grounds on which to give keys to people. It did take many days before things calmed down somewhat, but until that, many normal functions of the faction grinded to a halt - due to lack of motivation. In this instance of a Theft, no clues were left behind, and a DM confirmed that no rules had been broken. However, in this instance, the Thief should have done better.

I have had things stolen from a character of mine as well.

The first was a grievance with another Slave PC (with Rogue levels). My quarter's Lock DC was set low, so the other one went in and stole a bunch of uncut gems. Again, no RP had done, though the DM investigated by my request as the Thief had broken rules by stealing more than 1 thing. They were new to the server and the rules. The stolen things were returned as result and the player become more aware of the rules. No harm done.

Another instance was when my Sorcerer was pickpocketed in the spectator rafters during a Tournament. Lost a stack of 66 Spell components. I actually saw the Thief (I had high spot and lvl 30), they emoted a few lines along the lines of "Ssssh, enjoy the show" and HipSed out of view after I confronted them, hissing "THIEF!!". I could've ran after them and spam True Sight, but I didn't want to disrupt the tournament nor the Thief's RP. Later on I got rather upset about the Theft. 66x spell components at that time (700gp/each) equals 46,200 gold lost. Took me a while to calm my nerves and replace said lost components. It was definitely an emotional impact.

So, I've both done Thief, been a bystander in Theft and been victim of a Theft. What have I learned? Having things stolen from you sucks, so you should absolutely and always, without error, compensate with proper RP involved.

Not just "Be Nice", but "Be Extremely Nice". It is your responsibility to try to make a good Roleplaying experience out of something that is otherwise guaranteed to have a negative impact.

Make mistakes in your quarterbreak: drop a lead, leave forgeries in the place of original objects stolen (with a [Forgery] tag, so it's noticed). Leave something tangible for people to follow. Either leads that can help them to investigate, or... say, an invitation to an Art Auction to be held in Shadovar Trade Post. If you are going to pickpocket someone, do not rely on the mechanics; go beyond. Stumble to someone, apologize and bow your head a few times - and midst of that, do the act. If you build a Thieve's Guild, have it have a contact person so people can seek you out - both for their grievances, and to hire you.

This is the way -I- would do it.

Of all the discussion going on here, I do want to raise this:

I know the rules aren't written with the best as a standard. The standards are low. But we can raise the standard for quartertheft. We can require the thief to leave something, anything.

"By utilizing Thief mechanics against Player Characters, you are signing a contract that requires you to make sure some kind of roleplay comes out of the interaction. This is a Roleplaying server. If you take, make sure you at least try to give a good experience in return"