ultravioletu on 6/12/2017 at 12:04
The official ghost rules emerged long ago on Eidos Forum. However, EF is dead now, and even if its content was migrated to Square Enix forums, it looks like the taffers avoid the latter stubbornly. Therefore, we need a place to discuss those rules, to make them more applicable to the modern world, compatible with newest ideas and innovations from FMs.
The latest official form of the Ghost Rules is here: (
https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148523).
Also I would like to propose the following amendment.
The rule #6 for Supreme Ghost, originally
Quote:
6. No dousing of torches and no moss arrow use is allowed: Turning off electric lights, snuffing candles, or removing any light source including Mushrooms is also Not Allowed.
was already amended to
Quote:
6a. No dousing of torches. Turning off electric lights, snuffing candles, or removing any light source including Mushrooms is also Not Allowed.
6b. No use of moss arrows to deaden noise.
6c. The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes, such as to hit a switch or to complete a puzzle element.
But it must be further refined like this (changes in blue):
Quote:
6a. Dousing of torches, turning off electric lights, snuffing candles, or removing any light source including Mushrooms to create darkness for concealing purposes is Not Allowed.
6b. No use of moss arrows to deaden noise.
6c. The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes, such as to hit a switch or to complete a puzzle element. This explicitly includes the usage of holy water arrows (allowing thus for an exceptional usage of Holy Water potion, otherwise forbidden by Rule #5).
6d. It is allowed to remove light sources to obtain loot (e.g. lighted candlesticks) or to complete puzzle elements,
as long as the player does not use the additional darkness for concealing purposes. It is also allowed to remove light sources created by the player, for instance torches lit for completing puzzle elements.
Feel free to comment and suggest improvements. If there are no objections during the next days, the above changes become valid automatically.
Cigam on 6/12/2017 at 12:59
I can't help with Ghosting rules but I do think some of the rules could do with a refresh to remove seemingly arbritray elements. And this would be the best place to host official rules.
For example Titanium Man allows you to save if you need to take a break for more than an hour, then later pick up where you left off. So if I found that I was ready to start playing again 53m later I would wait the 7 mins just to make it an hour. But really, why should I have to do this? It has nothing to do with the challendge in any real way whether my break was less than an hour.
Anyway, "The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes..." the problem with rules like that is that unless you stipulate ALL exceptions, there is nothing to stop a player inventing a made up purpose. For example, my purpose in using the moss arrow is decoration. I like the way their green pattern contrasts with the floor. And if that coincidentally means that section of florr becomes quieter, well so be it.
You might say I am taking the mick but nothing actually breaks the rules here.
ultravioletu on 6/12/2017 at 15:21
But that would break rule 6b. One could rephrase 6c more precisely: "The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes, such as to hit a switch or to complete a puzzle element, as long as the player does not use the result to enhance Garrett's natural sneaking abilities" (or "as long as the player does not violate 6a and 6b").
Also, I personally have no issue with a whitelist of exceptions, provided that the rules are continuously kept up-to-date to match authors' creativity. As they were first drafted, there were no golden candlesticks that needed to be snuffed before taken. And barely, if any, missions where the player had to use gas, moss or holy water arrows: not to avoid/disable enemy AI, but to complete puzzles like in Morbid Curiosity or Endless Rain. So it's understandable why they written as such.
And I agree with you on Titanium Man rule, an inflexible limit of 60 minutes (why not 42?) is not in the spirit of the rule.
Yandros on 12/12/2017 at 02:10
Tannar and Peter Smith will no doubt want to weigh in here as well.
Grandmauden on 12/12/2017 at 04:01
I'd also like to propose an amendment that clarifies the rule against potions. Currently, the rules concerning potions state:
(Normal Ghost)
Quote:
7. The use of potions, such as speed, breath, and invisibility, is allowed but frowned upon. Such use must be reported, and a ghost success so aided must be listed as "chemical success".
(Supreme Ghost)
Quote:
5. Inventory and Weapons: [...] No Potions can be used at all. [...]
I've always felt that these rules were directed towards potions that specifically enhance Garrett's natural abilities or make areas easier to sneak through. But I don't think holy water vials necessarily fit in that category. They only affect Garrett's water arrows rather than Garrett himself, and it's debatable whether they even count as potions (Garrett doesn't drink them, he just dips his water arrows in them). At the very least, I think the use of holy water vials should be permissible if you need a holy water arrow to complete a puzzle element, like ultravioletu mentioned above.
On a similar note, what about potions that don't provide an enhancement or make sneaking easier, but are used as part of the story? Example: in "Finals at the Academy," the mission ends when you drink the Potion of True Dreams. While I was ghosting this mission, I was worried that this would bust my Supreme run, because the Supreme rule in its current form says that no potions are allowed whatsoever. Ultimately, I realized that it wasn't a bust because I had an objective to complete the initiation ritual - of which drinking the Potion of True Dreams is the final step - and, of course, breaking rules is okay if an objective tells you to. Without that objective, though, drinking the potion for the purpose of the storyline would've been a Supreme bust, even though this isn't the kind of scenario the rule was intended to prevent.
So, in summary, I would like to amend the Ghost rules to allow for the use of potions and holy water vials to complete puzzle or story elements, similar to the already-passed amendment concerning water and moss arrows and the proposed amendment concerning light sources.
downwinder on 12/12/2017 at 04:13
i got a idea that will solve all question about rules
have someone make a small mission forcing the player to follow the strict rules of ghosting ,if the person can complete mission without failing they then know the rules and can use that same system in all other missions,ofcourse if they are ghostable
then people if they got any question can play the mission and it would answer the question/s they had
mission can be done in section for certain rules
:) i am just a bit ahead of my time
ultravioletu on 12/12/2017 at 14:03
@Grandmauden: agree. The rule intention was to deal with slow fall, speed and invisibility potions. The "normal" usage of holy water - to damage or kill undead - is forbidden anyway by ghost rule #2 "No combat damage may be dealt", therefore it needs no additional explicit restriction.
@downwinder: Sneak-enforcing missions (more or less ghosting) exist, starting with OM Framed, or with FM The Art of Thievery to name one of the oldest I know (altough it's admittedly big). I am not sure that the engine can enforce all ghosting rules, especially the Supreme #7 (e.g. "no unnecessary pickups" or "return pickpocketed key on the patrol route"). But the authors can meet the engine halfways, by providing no arrows, no potions, no switches to lights/cameras/etc, and additional objective to bring back items (keys) to their original place.
If one wants to try out ghosting with new missions, sensut's Nosferatu is a small enough one, with few AI and no particularly complicated challenges. And there is an objective that forbids getting into combat mode with human enemies.
Alternately (or as a starter!), one can simply watch some of klatremus's videos. :)
smithpd on 15/12/2017 at 19:10
Hi, I am Peter Smith, the original author of the ghosting rules, with help and ample discussion from others on the Eidos forum and a few others, including Klatremus. Clayman invented the term, and Sneak was an avid original ghoster. I am pleased that people still have an interest in ghosting, and anyone who wants to be custodian of the rules would be welcome to do so, provided they don't wreck the original premises. ultraviolatetu, I don't know you personally, but I am happy to meet you.
I want to start with some general concepts and deal with detailed proposals in a later post.
First, I would like to remark that the purpose of the normal ghosting rules is to simply clarify details of the general premise: don't be seen or heard, and don't damage AI or property. The spirit of the premises, and not the details, are what matters. And then the Supreme rules were intended to add elements: don't leave any trace of your being there, and don't use artificial means of satisfying the normal rules, especially no dousing lights and mossing floors. Other ghosting variants, in my opinion, are unnecessary to codify as rules unless there is strong need or desire for them among the ghosting community.
And then there is another guideline. It is perfectly OK to fail ghosting. Or if a mission cannot be ghosted that is fine, too. There is no shame in that. If you write it up, you can say that you succeeded except for a certain few busts. But you cannot say you succeeded generally if you didn't. That said, it is common practice nowadays to design missions so they can be ghosted. That largely eliminates one of of the fun aspects of ghosting, which is to find extraordinary means to solve an otherwise intractable problem. To me, design for ghosting makes often it too easy.
In a similar vein, I think that adding rules simply to make ghosting easier or to cover situations in one mission is not a good idea. The existing rules have worked for a long time -- almost 20 years. It is better to admit failure, in my opinion, and to discuss the failure. It is also OK to leave a little ambiguity. You, the player, should know when you are within the spirit of ghosting.
I have been a little busy lately, but I'll be back later to comment on some of the specific proposals so far. Meanwhile, I want to voice my objection to one statement:
Quote Posted by ultravioletu
If there are no objections during the next days, the above changes become valid automatically.
There should be no rush or automatic promotion. Some elements of the original rules were discussed for months at Eidos, with long threads devoted to particular topics, such as property damage. For example, does bashing a door damage it? (maybe not, but the decision is that bashing doors is artificial entry and not allowed). I think there is no reason to be hasty, and people who are experts should be given time to weigh in, even sent emails if necessary to wake them up. I would appreciate the opportunity and the courtesy to weigh in. I would not have known about this thread if a friend had not notified me.
I think Klatremus should also weigh in on Supreme rules, if he is available. FYI, Klatremus and I have been in e-mail conversation about several aspects of Supreme, and I think he has the spirit of it down pat.
ultravioletu on 15/12/2017 at 20:03
Hi Peter,
good to hear that you're back, now the discussions is triggered, there is no need to hurry, of course. I also had offline conversations with klatremus, I'll drop him a line to weigh in. Probably is too busy with DCE and avoids the forum to stay away from spoilers ;)
You don't know me since I wasn't active on Eidos forums, but I tell you that I prefer ghosting playstyle. From watching the famous "let's really ghost Thief" series of videos, I came to learn the beauty of supreme rules. Strictly by the rules I am hardly a ghoster, since there are few missions where I did not have to resort to some extents to loot lists or loot-related spoilers - against rule #9. Because of that I don't usually write ghost reports. Altough I am mightily tempted to record and upload, as tribute to klatremus, my supreme run of sensut's Nosferatu. :)
Thanks for the warm welcome, in any case.