<<I hope you're talking specifically about incidents involving pickpocketing

I am. I should have been more clear but since the discussion is about pickpocketing I was referring to it, not the system as a whole. I would think the chance that a pickpocket racked up millions in fines would be pretty remote and so the loss of gear issue wouldn't really pertain to this particular skill discussion. That's just my opinion though.

~Mazreth
Ta'Vaalor Guru
Erithi Guru
Burghal Gnome Guru

---

"Mother should I trust the Government?"

How about making it function additionally like the forage verb in populated or urban areas.

pickpocket gem coin weapon object item etal.

Then it'll be like; You scout around and manage to lift an/a item from an unsuspecting passerby or shelf.
roundtime

then after 2 or 3 attempts the room will be empty and will have to replenish after a period.

the higher the roll the better the item. put random really nice things in the mix akin to those digging grounds and games from various events for the highly skilled. mark every item gained in this method as stolen so if you fail so badly yer caught those items marked will be taken away permanantly on top of the theft penalty already in place.

each time yer caught will add a negative modifier that will slowly lessen over time til its gone to help stave off abuse. just ideas that would make the skill somewhat profitable and usable by people who dont want to distress other players.

The issue arises from an entirely separate group of people, for whom the "we want" statement is "less stealing", instead of "more stealing". <shrug>

People happen to exist on both sides of the debate, is all.

GMs have said that they're not averse to changing <pretty much anything, which is not in the Character Manager>.

But, since the Boards are open to all, every time you (or someone else) comes to say how much they love the possibilities of the current system (or even more changes), I (or someone else) has equal justification to say how much we wouldn't mind the demise of the current system (or even more).

Please note, for example, that there were MONTHS--probably, years; quite possibly, decades--of elapsed time rolling along of absolute silence on the subject of removing Pick Pockets.
Until someone--naming no names--started saying, "Let's do something!"

Once Opinion#1 opens the door, others are going to offer other Opinions.

TL,DR: When you open with a conversational gambit, you need to expect responses. If you don't want responses, then that's a diatribe. Anything you don't want us seeing and replying to, send directly to the GMs in email. None of us will have any inkling of what the fabulous new suggestions are, to be able to comment on them.

.

.

So, put forward your systemic suggestions, as to how Pickpocketing can be made into a Moar Better Thing.

I'm... skeptical of the "put a bomb in the creature's pocket" (what about animals? what about golems? not all Undead wear clothes?) but I'd be willing to see what comes of it. It's not like we don't have explosive reagents floating around here... :)

>>To be fair, I hear that clerics and empaths are unlikely targets because of peer pressure. I could easily imagine a lot more corpses in towns if clerics and empaths were getting pickpocketed.

Is anyone being pickpocketed? And if so, where? I could imagine someone new to the skill who just pickpockets while randomly out hunting, and, of course, is immediately caught because you need a good crowd (think half a dozen or more) of people loitering around for it to work well.

So far as I know, there were only a few places in the entire game where pickpocketing could be done with any sort of reliability, and these were TSC in Landing, Town Square in Icemule, and the Dais in Ta'Illistim. These places are now either empty, or permanently sancted (?).

>>Is anyone being pickpocketed? And if so, where?

I have had a few attempts on my characters, mostly in the Landing. It has generally happened in the gemshop and right outside the gate. Of course, as soon as an attempt was unsuccessful the thieves ran.

>Those not operating within this framework simply aren't offering anything constructive, but they're going to troll anyway.

No, we are simply not allowing you to do things like assume a consensus that does not exist in favor of pickpocketing. As to being constructive, constructive to me would be to change the skill so that it is not CvC based, so we have different definitions there. But you would do much better if you would engage ideas and arguments rather than continuing to try to shut down disagreements as if they do not exist and insulting other posters.

--David

"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"

>Other then a couple times friends have been playing around with it, I haven't had items go missing from my inventory or caught anyone rifling through my pockets in a long time, despite having gems, wands, etc that's stealable on most of my characters most of the time. I'm also the sort of person that's lazy about closing containers.

I remember the days when you could steal from someone's disk....

The Park in the Landing used to be the hangout spot for mass spells. It was a terrific location for thieves back in the day. I'd highlight all names in bright yellow that I saw thieving or caught in my things. There'd be days I'd pass through the park or stop in TSC for help from an empath and I'd see a dozen plus thieves just hanging out in the open among the crowd of people.....I'm not saying they were constantly stealing, but they were known by my character to have stickyfingers.

I still have a habit of closing my disk and keeping all my containers closed. Out hunting, I come across a good gem (diamond and such), I OPEN MY POUCH/PUT GEM IN MY POUCH/CLOSE MY POUCH. Also, when I check my silver I still don't use the SILVER command in game. I always type INFO.

A great way to make yourself a mark back in the day was by typing SILVER in game. You show yourself off to others with:
Xxxxxxx rummages around in his pockets.

A few moments later you'd see the same person checking their pockets for silvers and you'd see this:
Xxxxxxx appears to be checking his pockets for something, but finds them empty.

Once they removed the rapid fire stealing, a handful of thieves in one spot could still pick a mark clean in a matter of seconds.

I don't miss the days of heavy thievery, but at the same time, I do miss the posts of people showing how they picked a room clean and came out with tons of gems and silver. It was always an entertaining read. I also found it funny when someone would shout out, "Close your containers, we got a thief!" and you'd see everyone and their cousin closing all their containers over the next couple of seconds.

Trying to find a system that can benefit the thief as much as it will protect the mark, would require a re-write of the skill with a lot of checks and balances put into place. Whether the GMs will take this route or if they leave things as they are, either one doesn't matter to me.

-Drumpel

>>Those not operating within this framework simply aren't offering anything constructive, but they're going to troll anyway.

>No, we are simply not allowing you to do things like assume a consensus that does not exist in favor of pickpocketing. As >to being constructive, constructive to me would be to change the skill so that it is not CvC based, so we have different >definitions there. But you would do much better if you would engage ideas and arguments rather than continuing to try to >shut down disagreements as if they do not exist and insulting other posters.

>--David

Ideas have been shared, GM's have made statements and yet you pursue discourse that's been dismissed. You'll never get total consensus, so all that matters is the games Master rulings, an that many of us (as expressed in this thread) see great potential for making the entire thing fly again without causing grief.

You need to listen to the ideas given by me and others.

1. Improved justice system.
2. Possible interaction with arrest process.
3. Possible retribution without being arrested.
4. Possible adv guild bounties.
5. Theft from merchants & NPC's again.
6. Removal of justice system item loss.
7. Fixing current system's out dated mechanics.
8. Possible system flagging as being a known thief.
9. Possible victim compensation if arrest is made.
10. And more.

You can't suggest unreasonable ideas and expect then to build those in. I.e. Cut a hand off perm...
All you will do is find disappointment.

It's so boring now nobody cares about it.
It was an exciting element, though lacked a proper framework.

We need a framework, not a lingering nuisance.

There's nothing wrong with ideas.

Plenty of bad stuff that took place, hence the nurf, but we need to move forward.

To the opt out, my opinion is that doesn't fly anymore than an opt out of combat flies.
I don't think it fits the spirit.

>Ideas have been shared, GM's have made statements and yet you pursue discourse that's been dismissed.

Dismissed by whom? I have seen no official statement that any idea other than a change to the character manager is not likely to happen. A few GMs have posted their own opinions, and even those have not been consistent. You want to claim ideas have been dismissed because you do not agree with them. That does not make it a reality. Absolutely no official voice has said that eliminating the CvC element of pickpocketing is off the table, or that an opt out is impossible.

>To the opt out, my opinion is that doesn't fly anymore than an opt out of combat flies.

And that is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but do not claim that it is unreasonable or off topic just because you disagree with the idea, when, as has been noted, even a GM indicated it as a possibility--completely as a matter of opinion on the GMs part, of course, just like the other GM posts in this thread that you want to cite as absolute authority.

I'm sure that everyone is tired of seeing us go back and forth like this. Again, I would suggest you focus on discussing ideas, both those you like and those you don't, rather than trying to silence the ones you do not like.

--David

"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"

I would be against removing sanctuaries so a few people have more opportunity to create conflict.

I have it!

Have random NPC thieves stroll about town, stealing various items / silvers from anyone and everyone.

Allow PCs to band together and hunt down an NPC thief caught in the act.

Allow PCs to bounty with (hire?) PC thieves to get the items back (who better to catch a thief than. . .)

Add item recovery as a special Adventurers' Guild bounty task - in town instead of in the wilds.

Let PC thieves steal straight up from any NPC thieves they discover / observe / get reports about / get a bounty on.

And. . .

Let PC thieves steal from PC characters, facing all the above provisos, including NPC thieves getting the items back for any PC so requesting.

Doug

Ahh, but David - the Adventurers' Guild knows all (somehow)! Never ceases to amaze me how they can tie a missing child report to a particular creature, nor how they know the kid somehow survived, nor. . .

And in all honesty, selecting out of participation could remain as easy as closing containers and frequenting banks. Or even baiting containers (see previous posts about container traps. ;)

What the suggestion does do, is it creates avenues for NPC-PC interaction for the skill, not unlike combat. That one point alone is essential, in my view - and why I chose to walk that path in the suggestion. Admittedly, though, it still needs some rounding out.

Can't say for sure - but I'll bet we could build something satisfactory in concept, if we add. I get that some dissatisfaction may remain. Don't know that I have all the answers, honestly. That's why I threw this out there. But moving from the dialog from 'untenable' to 'unsatisfactory' is a start! Now, how do we round it out?

As an 'add' example - Maybe pay for protection? A stipend to the Thieves' Guild would go a long way, I would imagine. Even in protecting oneself from a PC thief - registered with the guild of course. The guild would likely take a dim view of an 'unlicensed' operator within its area of interest. The loss of a hand, even permanently, might be considered 'light punishment' in their eyes.

The only real downfall I see is that it doesn't seem to be light development effort. But I've seen the GM team pull off some amazing changes recemtly, so why dream small I ask.

Doug

>>I honestly do not understand the objection to an opt-out, by the way.

I'm not opposed nor am I fearful. Between you and I, we can drop the whole improbable 'want, don't want' comparisons. We both know neither of us have a basis for those perspectives beyond personal opinion. While I may not be opposed, I certainly don't see a need, either. In games of this nature, opt-outs are clumsy band aids.

The reason opt-outs don't work in my view is because it cheapens / deadens the gaming environment. Consider, should we let dark elf players opt out of trading penalties? Should we let halfling players opt out of the encumbrance system. Yeah, I know - racial. Let's go a bit less on that side, then! Should we let players decide not to train in perception and opt out of needing to search for hidden doors and passages? Should we let empath players opt out of Red Rot?

My list can go on and on, and I'm sure you've a like list in mind. I really am not inviting a list comparison. ;) The only point I'm trying to make is this is a game of choice / consequence. 'Allow for all the choice but permit a path to no consequence' is simply not a viable solution, in my view.

>>Now, if the traps you mention always worked, that would be different. But they don't.

So suggest that be 'added'. And just like pick pocket success factors and detection factors would require some rework in a new scenario in my view, the trap success should be considered. 'Always work', though - no. How about 'mostly always'?

Part of the reason why the system was so polarizing was its success factor or infallibility. If it were to work like combat, smashing success should be possible, and agonizing misses should be possible. That goes for traps, as well. Why put in an improvement designed to do nothing more than put the success cliff entirely on the other side for a decade? Fair and balanced should work - shouldn't it?

By the way, I don't have and never have had a rogue, I haven't attempted to learn to min/max any pickpocket system or exploit it in the game, and I was just this week the 'victim' of a (friendly, and funny!) pick pocket attempt in Ice Mule. To those who infrequently score that gem or wand from my characters in my lapsing, doddering moments, congratulations. To those few thieves who responded in kind to my attempts to portray characters caught in these circumstances, thank you.

Doug

"Maybe pay for protection?" -- Doug

"Youse guys is behind ahn yer pertection payments. Me'n Guido, here, is here ta remind youse guys ta keep ahn yer pertection payments. Guido likes remindin' people, don't ya, Guido?"

"Yeah, boss."

"Remember to pay us, or we'll be back in three days ta 'remind' youse again, see."

>l in my cloak

In the cloak you see: a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt, a thieves guild receipt and a pair of miniature jaws.

>Read receipt

Thank you for the uncut diamond. Please continue to leave your pockets open for our operatives. The Thieves Guild. P.S. A 10% discount on your monthly subscription may be obtained by presenting this receipt at Beldrins Security Services.

>l jaws
The jaws look vicious despite their miniature size. The trap is currently unset. There appears to be something in it.

>l in jaws
A mangled scrap of paper is caught in the jaws

>read paper
It appears to be an advertisement for something. Reading the mangled scrap you can just piece together, "This month's special offer at BS Services: 2 for 1 on GBH! Book now for guaranteed satisfaction!"

>>Have random NPC thieves stroll about town, stealing various items / silvers from anyone and everyone.

I hate this idea but if they targeted people who were afk(say they hadn't said or moved in 15 minutes) it would be more acceptable to me.

>Consider, should we let dark elf players opt out of trading penalties? Should we let halfling players opt out of the encumbrance system. Yeah, I know - racial. Let's go a bit less on that side, then! Should we let players decide not to train in perception and opt out of needing to search for hidden doors and passages? Should we let empath players opt out of Red Rot?

These are not the same things and are a false equivalency. It would be more likely if it was conflict driven actions. Theft makes the world alive is your point, gives an atmosphere of danger. So does murder, rapey whispers or any other number of random awful things we limit. People can avoid theft by closing containers and depositing silvers. People can avoid being randomly murdered by cowering in sanctuaries. It's all so much fun. I would hope as a last resort if they did bring in any of these pickpocket ideas they would add more tables in all the towns so you could just avoid the nonsense altogether.

>>but if they targeted people who were afk

Hah. . . a whole new layer of potential disagreement, but yeah - why not? They qualify as 'anyone and everyone' too.

>>These are not the same things and are a false equivalency

In the abstract, any opt-out is an opt-out.

>>It would be more likely if it was conflict driven actions

Absolutely agree here (to better aligned equivalency, at least). I didn't because the Pandora's box is an ugly opening gambit. But since you brought them forth.

>>Theft makes the world alive is your point, gives an atmosphere of danger. So does murder, rapey whispers or any other number of random awful things we limit.

That's a slightly mischaracterized restatement of my view, but let's leave that for a bit. We do not limit the other actions by permitting a hard 'opt out'. Key point, they can still happen. Pandora's box is that they require GM time to bring to 'closure'. That's part of what brought us to this impasse in the first place, in my view.

>>People can avoid theft by closing containers and depositing silvers. People can avoid being randomly murdered by cowering in sanctuaries. It's all so much fun.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I understand what you're communicating here. Since that's exactly the situation we're in today, are you suggesting you're ok with it? Or is that a sarcastic 'much fun' comment, meaning you want to do away with these capabilities? I'm betting yes to the first, and no to the second, because. . .

>>I would hope as a last resort if they did bring in any of these pickpocket ideas they would add more tables in all the towns so you could just avoid the nonsense altogether.

You're right! I didn't address tables! How kind of you to bring that up. Why do we need more, though? I'm considering based on this view of the proposal that you (the player) essentially don't want to interact with anyone except your chosen few - said differently, you would 'opt out' of any other player interaction, if you could. Is that 'much fun' as you're characterizing it?

Not trying to be snarky or misleading here - I ask because fully half of my characters are loners - seeking solitude, not interacting beyond minimalistic necessary exchanges. A couple of them have been nominated as 'dead rude non-roleplaying characters who no doubt just script'. Yet a few of my characters (not the rest of the half, mind you) are very gregarious, seeking others, cutting in jokes and acting as a ham, or a straightman type, bartering services, etc., etc. I wouldn't have considered in an RP sense that a player would consistently view anything in the lands as 'nonsense' or 'necessary'. Choice. . .

At any rate - I'm at the point where I usually step back and ask for your solution. So far we have a spectrum (yadda, yadda, yadda - David's probably seen this more times than he wants to admit). We've anchored the spectrum between whole hog bring it on (nominally called the Crime position), and the no way jose don't fly under any banner (nominally called the remove the skill position). This proposal is probably closer to the Crime end of the spectrum. I'd say it's about 30% of the spectrum removed.

Now for the hard part - what would be your (general you) contribution to reshaping the remove the skill position, bringing it along the spectrum the other way? I'd like to see something proposed. Like I said - I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Doug

Doug

>> Pickpocketing is a system which players force on other players and which allows those of lower level no way to respond when someone of higher level decides to pick on them.

The problem here is the justice system. Thinking about it realistically, what civilized town / society would continue to allow this situation to continue without addressing it (assuming it isn't the ones in charge that are doing the stealing). That's why I focused a lot of my suggestions around higher penalties / more teeth for the justice system. If players (generally speaking) feel that the punishment fits the crime, then they will most likely be open to a system which allows other players to play the villain (in this case, the thief). At present I would argue that most people do not feel the current justice system comes anywhere near close enough to support this however (my opinion).

-- Robert

A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!

>The problem here is the justice system. Thinking about it realistically, what civilized town / society would continue to allow this situation to continue without addressing it (assuming it isn't the ones in charge that are doing the stealing). That's why I focused a lot of my suggestions around higher penalties / more teeth for the justice system. If players (generally speaking) feel that the punishment fits the crime, then they will most likely be open to a system which allows other players to play the villain (in this case, the thief). At present I would argue that most people do not feel the current justice system comes anywhere near close enough to support this however (my opinion)-- Robert

Ha. And Robert posted this while I was writing my last one. Yes, I think this is a very major part of the issue. This is pretty much what I was saying.

--David

"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"