If you sell it IG should it be stealable?

It's a pay to win workaround that screws the game. Sure its awesome to run ig bakeries and the like, but with the current ruling on it, you open the door for more nefarious, less beneficial oog to ig trades.
It is not, at this time and in my perception, screwing the game.

Do you have any actual examples of these nefarious transactions? By your own phrasing you acknowledge that allowing the sale of baked goods etc. in game is beneficial. Maybe that wasn't your intent. If you cannot provide actual examples of this matter damaging the game then you are furthering a continuing to push an argument based on a hypothetical that at best is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken and potentially is much worse. I don't know you, have never met you in person or even heard your voice, so I'm not comfortable making assumptions about your intent, but I am going to tell you what my gut reaction is based on what you have written so far on this subject. You play a character who isn't a very good person, and are kind of defensive of that decision. Remember, playing an immoral character is a decision that you - the player - made. Your continued insistence that not being able to swipe anything you want at any time is breaking the game for you sends up a red flag for me. I am not bringing this up to attack you but to be transparent about the things I am feeling in response to the content and demeanor of your arguments. Again, I don't know you at all, so this reaction is certainly subject to internet bias... but that's part of my point. You have mentioned loopholes in the rules; one loophole is that people with out of game bad intentions will make characters that match those intentions, and then defend their poor behavior by claiming it is just in character. This dodge actuallyhas surfaced in the game before, and is a large part of why I am not the only one who has this perception of the arguments that you (and others, to be fair) are making in this and related threads. I urge you to consider the dehumanizing influence of text-only media when framing any further debate on the matter.

It is my assessment much of what you appear to be arguing for is in danger of violating the Good Sport rule. It has been mentioned a few times already in the multiple threads on the matter but I will put the text here for the sake of clarity.

Alliance Rulebook said:
The Alliance Code of Conduct
The “Good Sport” Rule
There is an underlying principle behind
all of the many rules in this book. This “prime
directive” is actually very simple: We expect
you to be a good sport.
Some PCs have taken advantage of the
rules, bullied other players, and made the game
not fun for others and then claim in their defense
“Hey, I haven’t violated any rules and
besides, it’s all in-game.” This is not good
sportsmanship.
The idea here is that you should play your
character concept, whether good or evil, while
at the same time keep the good of the game and
the interests of your fellow players in mind.
Don’t be a bully. Allow everyone to have fun.
If you do feel you should have the right to steal people's personal property because you made the decision to play a thief and therefore doing so is in character, you're wrong. If you feel that you should be allowed the chance to steal something that someone is attempting to sell... you may have a point. Do you know what the right decision is?

Ask them.

Approach them out of game and get permission to swipe their goods. If they're cool with it, great, get your theft on. If not, fine, don't do it. If you're worried about metagaming, intentional or otherwise, ask a marshal to ask on your behalf. Send your head of rules an email asking them to find out for you. Probably CC the customer service rep, just to be upfront about it, since people finding their out of game stuff has been out of game stolen is a pretty reliable way to generate customer service issues. Remember, this is a game, and games are supposed to be fun for everyone. If your version of fun may include stepping on someone else's fun, please revisit that decision. The best stories involve character growth; our stories are no different.
 

Morai

Scholar
This thread is becoming very redundant and a little inflammatory, so I'm going to close it temporarily to let things cool off. It'll be opened back up tomorrow.

~Joe
 

jpariury

Duke
I think there might be a certain amount of misperception on the topic. I think the people concerned with it aren't asking as matter of trying to ruin anyone's fun, but as a matter of consistency with the game mechanics. Let me see if I can restructure the discussion a bit:

Under what conditions should there exist in-game fiduciary instruments that can be freely traded within the game world, but are absolutely unstealable? At the same time, should it be permitted to bring those instruments into the game at the whim of the players (rather than at the behest of plot)?
 

jpariury

Duke
Just to expand a bit into an example of how the above could be implemented in a horrible way:

Between games, you give me thirty gold, and I give you thirty pieces of art - let's say hand-drawn pictures of gold pieces. During the course of the game, you trade these with other players for an equivalent rate of one gold per picture. Some hang them on their walls, some stick them on their doors, etc. If, for some reason, they get rolled or even killed, they simply bring these pictures back with them. They're not tagged game items, they were produced with my own OOG resources, etc, so no one can steal them. They don't even have to drop them if they're rezzed. Heck, if they want, they can hand them off to one of their own other characters. Anytime they want to get the coin, in order to deal with logistics or some such, they come to me between games, and I trade them back for one gold per artwork.

This seems to me to be a very clear, cut-and-dried violation of the spirit of the rules. The intention is definitely not to allow players to walk around with unstealable, unlosable coin. Doing this should definitely get me, and the players who do this with their characters, kicked out of the game. I in no way endorse this.

Does the principle of this unconscionable, terrible practice change if the artwork is replaced with cookies? What about flags? Hats? Shirts? Cloaks? Pouches? Fancy sparkly pants? Small children? Where should the line be drawn, and why?

I definitely won't claim that there's a clear, bright line. Certainly some scrap of paper with my chicken-scratch handwriting isn't of nearly the value that a pineapple upside-down mango-frosted bundt cake is. But is the clear, bright distinction between tagged and not-tagged sufficient for the purposes of the rules? Should a non-tagged letter with the secret passwords to bypass my fifty Warder Glyphs be as unstealable as my gold lame boxers shorts?
 

Sheakhan

Adept
I think there might be a certain amount of misperception on the topic. I think the people concerned with it aren't asking as matter of trying to ruin anyone's fun, but as a matter of consistency with the game mechanics. Let me see if I can restructure the discussion a bit:

Under what conditions should there exist in-game fiduciary instruments that can be freely traded within the game world, but are absolutely unstealable? At the same time, should it be permitted to bring those instruments into the game at the whim of the players (rather than at the behest of plot)?
Precisely. Though admittedly it may have come off more self interested.

I'll say that, despite my arguments thus far, I ultimately think this IS probably a minor issue, and most players won't abuse or think to abuse the openings it provides.

The problem with items being introduced at player whim, despite this, is the lack of accountability. Just as you cannot catch a player fudging the damage he/she has taken unless you happen to catch them in the act, any rulings made in regards to item sales would have to be solid and tangible or you would run into the same situation.

Here's what we've faced so far as challenges to the concept of regulated oog sellables:

1. Logistics load. Requiring they be tagged and counted as production items makes work for logistics.

Solution: Streamline the process. Have logistics print "batch" tags to be briefly filled out and signed, and coin taken. Issue (or require a player wanting to sell oog items to print off their own) tags for each item. Have each batch tag represent 1-13 items. Now oog items have more solid accountability, logistics has only a minor addition to their responsibility, and these items aren't magically entering game (i would propose a low cost, coppers per batch)

2. Stealing/destroying oog items for sale is dangerously close to real stealing.

Solution: Require the tags to be left visible with any oog items. Restrict item sales to the tavern and surrounding area. If you see an oog item in this area with no tag, it is not stealable. If you do see the tag, you may steal the tag only. Oog conversation can determine if the owner wants to give you the phys rep as well. Oog items outside of this area are considered "spoiled" or "depreciated" and no longer meaningfully in game. Merchants selling oog items must keep the tags for these items seperate but accessible so they can be stolen/destroyed as easily as the oog items could be without anyone actually doing so.

3. What about determining a cost/production cost! Logistics nightmare.

Solution: Set production cost for all oog sellables at a single reasonable amount. Until we determine a working economic model, there is no point establishing realistic prices. Each chapter would determine the cost for producing these items and make that information publicly available. No more involved or difficult than a forum post or opening ceremonies announcement.
 

Lurin

Duke
Quick side note. I find that any time a solution involves the words "fair, reasonable, or acceptable" You don't have a solution.
 

Sheakhan

Adept
Reasonable, in this instance being a sum comparable to other production items with limited/no in game benefit and which is agreed upon by those instituting the policies.

Additionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement uses the word "fair", and was apparently a valid enough solution to merit being, you know, actualized. Custody/Alimony/Visitation agreements utilize the word "reasonable" several times in their body and are considered valid legal solutions to the problems indicated by their titles. The realm of solutions using the words you indicate as not indicative of proper solutions is vast and encompassing.
 

markusdark

Knight
I agree with Mike 100%. However for every person is about the spirit of the rules there's one that is about letter of the rules or a spirited interpretation that only benefits them at that time. At least that has been my experience.

On another point - I don't see stealing such items as a way to garner wealth. As most of these don't have a set worth (as the worth is often derived by the people who wish to sell/buy them) stealing them doesn't allow you to turn them over to plot for monies back. You could try to sell them to other players but if someone was selling the brownies that just disappeared - it would be a hard way to keep it unnoticed.

The only worth in stealing such items, IMO, are so that you can pig out on brownies and sodas without having to pay for them. Personally, and I know it's against the rules, if someone leaves some goodies unattended on a table in the middle of the inn, I usually make the assumption that they are for general consumption (small food items only - I assume unopened sodas someone's coming back for). To me, it's like someone opening up a bag of chips at a party and leaving it on a table.

As for JP's description of the gold drawings - First I didn't know you could transfer gold between characters outside of the game. That aside though, there is nothing in the rules that would require me to honor that untagged drawing as a value of one gold. Merchants don't have to take it and as the creator, if someone wanted to trade it back to you for 1 gold, you could say, "nah, I'll give you two copper for it." In this case it is once again the value that the PC's put on the item. You can tell me all day long that that drawing is worth one gold but you won't get one of my drinks for it.

Basically, if you're willing to be on the up and up about it, and are transferring the wealth between games - what's the difference between giving you one gold for the picture that has no monetary value in the game and me just leaving that gold at home? And if someone wants to give them one gold for it during the game, that's no different than me simply giving someone one gold as charity.

Setting 'reasonable' costs only works chapter by chapter - it's nothing that can be done game wide. Just travel to various chapters and see how much the same ritual scroll goes for/is willing to be paid for.
 

MaxIrons

Squire
Oregon Staff
Marshal
"The only worth in stealing such items, IMO, are so that you can pig out on brownies and sodas without having to pay for them."

As has been stated multiple times at this point, the only fair thieving system would not allow you to keep the physrep (food/sodas/pants).

"Basically, if you're willing to be on the up and up about it, and are transferring the wealth between games - what's the difference between giving you one gold for the picture that has no monetary value in the game and me just leaving that gold at home? And if someone wants to give them one gold for it during the game, that's no different than me simply giving someone one gold as charity."

Essentially what you are then dealing with, if someone had the guts to do it, would be a player acting as an in game bank issuing an arguably superior currency (being unstealable). If I began issuing 1 gold "promissory notes" and always was able to provide the gold upon demand....

Now this quite obviously is not playing by the spirit of the rules... and JP is asking where even a fuzzy line can be drawn and I have one for him: re-transferability. While brownies are sold at say 5 silver, they generally cannot be handed back to the vendor at a guaranteed 5 silver return, nor can it be reliably traded to other players at the 5 silver rate. This is not a "rule" but one possible indicator. A somewhat better indicator is if players/staff are looking at what's going on and have the response of "You've got to be kidding me"; "What is this?"; or "Well, that's a jerk move." on an out of game level.
 
I think there might be a certain amount of misperception on the topic. I think the people concerned with it aren't asking as matter of trying to ruin anyone's fun, but as a matter of consistency with the game mechanics. Let me see if I can restructure the discussion a bit:

Under what conditions should there exist in-game fiduciary instruments that can be freely traded within the game world, but are absolutely unstealable? At the same time, should it be permitted to bring those instruments into the game at the whim of the players (rather than at the behest of plot)?
Under the circumstance that doing so is considered, by the president and owners of Alliance, to be more beneficial to the quality of player experience than detrimental.
 

OrcFighterFTW

Spellsword
I've read this whole thread and I'm going to chime in here as a PC who plays a thief, a prominent merchant/fence for stolen goods, and as a big weapon for hire to beat down the jerk who stole your in-game items, even if it was probably me. (All the same character)

To begin from a rules standpoint, Mike V. said it best already, only in-game tagged items are able to be stolen as outlined in the rules. If it's not tagged, don't touch it. As suggested, the proper way to "steal" food or another non-tagged item is to buy it legitimately, then somehow get your coin (the in-game item) back through stealth, guile, or brute force. This allows you to consume the other persons property, such as food, because they were aware and agreed to that exchange out of game. Anything else is out of game theft, and that's not cool from a spirit of the rules standpoint and is a violation of law as actual theft. Is it logically consistent with an actual behavior of how you'd do it "in real life" standpoint? No, but it all goes along with the representational game we play, and it is very consistent with the suspension of disbelief and other related aspects of representational game mechanics from that perspective.

Again as someone who both plays a thief, you really need to choose your targets carefully, and if you need to reverse metagame targets, as has been suggested for the betterment of the game as a whole, then please do so. For example, don't beat down and take a new player's stuff just because you can. It's the same old "just because you can doesn't mean you should" mantra that has already been mentioned. Any good thief makes a profit on stolen goods, not just uses them for him or herself. If you can't resell it for 100% profit, you are an inefficient thief and I'd encourage you to re-evaluate your targets. The reason I mention this here is that the only truly resell-able targets are tagged in-game items that will not draw suspicion from others. The untagged items usually only have one person who is supposed to be selling them, and if it's not you, other characters will know and act accordingly.

Additionally, the only reason people seem to sell out-of-game items is to earn coin to buy in-game items from merchants or other characters, which is actually a good thing for both the merchants and in-game economy as a whole! Keep the coin flowing to keep trades happening! A stalled and stagnant economy without the constant exchanges of goods and services is an unhealthy economy that limits possibilities for future trades, which hurts the economy in a downward spiral. It's the same theoretical reason our own Federal Reserve pumps dollars into the U.S. economy every month and other stimulus packages Congress has passed. As far as I can tell from my own experience and the comments of others in this thread, this protection from theft of these minority of goods and services is a non-issue from an in-game economic standpoint as it only helps the economy and it is enriching the game experience of other players.

The protection from theft of these items and services is worth that trade off, and as Dave G (Lurin) pointed out, you can't steal a service like a late Saturday night massage after a day of swinging pipe. It would be impossible to regulate that, as capitalist free markets of supply and demand will always win out. To echo him further: owners, staff, and rules marshals don't want to be in the arena of evaluating the gold value of one person's services or non-standard goods over another's in case of theft. That only sets the stage for all sorts of bad personal conflicts that we really don't need.

Let the free market dictate prices, let the merchants and thieves play their game, and let the chapter staff focus on running awesome plot.

[Related note: As someone with dietary restrictions/nutritional balance issues, just avoid taking other people's food without their permission as a decent human thing. There are much better and legal things to steal in-game, and some players need high sugar/high protein/non-gluten/"your dietary issue here" food for personal health reasons and we bring our own food specifically for that.]
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
Before someone says "but what about...?" please note the exception to the "only tagged items can be stolen" rule (which is mentioned in the Rule Book) -- plot items can be stolen. For instance, I am putting out a bunch of in-game letters and documents at this next event, along with a few plot items that don't have numbers but are put out by the Plot Committee (i.e.: "The Mystical Stone of Noonah, which can be used to open the portal!"). Clearly, there is no problem with you stealing those things. In case it isn't clear, items provided by the chapter are available for all players to have, steal, and trade. Items brought in by players remain theirs up until they agree to give them away or sell them. And even then, they are now the possession of the player who bought them or were given them, so it would STILL be stealing for real if you took them.

Come on, this really isn't hard. Some of you should just stop trying to find exceptions to allow you to steal people's stuff. You know perfectly well what the intent of the rule is. Is it a game-provided item? Steal it. Did it come into game from a player? Don't steal it.
 
Last edited:

MaxIrons

Squire
Oregon Staff
Marshal
Something weird is happening, and I want to curtail it. Those who are arguing that OOG items to be sold should be stealable are saying we should tag items being sold to make the item work the same way as other items in the game by giving them tags, and the tags are the only thing you can keep. Those who are arguing against these items being tagged keep using the argument that you can't keep someone's OOG items.

o_O
 

Sheakhan

Adept
Hell I'm barely even focusing on the stealing aspect.

Someone earlier brought up the issue of telling tagged items from untagged and yet Mike suggests this issue already exists with plot introduced items that have no tags, no innate value, and are indistinguishable from personally owned items.

According to the above I could copy plot introduced notes, "destroy" the original and keep my personal notes secret and private and untouchable.
 

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Owner
Moderator
HQ Staff
You could indeed, if you wanted to ignore the entire spirit of the game, discard the "good sportsman" and the "reverse metagame" rule, be a jerk, and ruin everyone else's fun.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

I've said everything I wanted to about this, so I'm out of here.
 

Sheakhan

Adept
My issue is that those rules, while vital and excellent when in practice, are arbitrary and open to interpretation. While you or I might see that situation and determine it to be poor sportsmanship, not everyone might. People have vastly differing ideas of what constitutes the spirit of the game.

Until I saw this discussion it had never even occurred to me that stealing food being sold for ig coin was viewed negatively, and had I never seen it, inevitably I would've found the opportunity to act on what I thought was acceptable.

I think pulling your punches to avoid killing a newbie who attacks you is poor sportsmanship, but not everyone might.

Having rules in place that can mean different things to each player is almost like having no rules at all.
 

Sheakhan

Adept
Just two with alliance, and several with another larp that follows the same basic rules and philosophy.
 

Avaran

Baron
My issue is that those rules, while vital and excellent when in practice, are arbitrary and open to interpretation. While you or I might see that situation and determine it to be poor sportsmanship, not everyone might. People have vastly differing ideas of what constitutes the spirit of the game.
That is generally why we have rules marshals, and why long-time players tend to speak up and say "Hey, we don't do things that way."

Since you are new to the PNW Alliance scene, let me see if I can explain to help clear things up for you:

You're right, these rules ARE open to interpretation, but that is by design. You can't write a rule or law for every single behavior or situation. If you did, you'd end up with a rulebook that is thousands of pages thick, and you'd require a law degree to be able to understand and follow it all, and new players would rightfully decide to go play a different game.

Instead, in our game, we like to allow people the latitude to act like adults, and not be d-bags to their fellow players.

I'd also like to point out that the practice of leaving rules and laws up to interpretation is a practice with some real-world laws as well; many laws are passed with the specific intention of allowing judges to interpret them as best suits the people they serve and the situation at hand.

Rules Marshals are there to inject a little of what I call "The Human Factor", so that the rules don't become too overbearing or verbose, and so that a little compassion can be shown if a situation warrants it.

Until I saw this discussion it had never even occurred to me that stealing food being sold for ig coin was viewed negatively, and had I never seen it, inevitably I would've found the opportunity to act on what I thought was acceptable.
As with most discussions on these boards, this is just a friendly conversation about this particular topic. Why are you concluding that it is viewed negatively? If it were, don't you think the people in charge would try and take steps to end the practice? While the opinions expressed in this thread (and others) are certainly important and have merit, they in no way represent the broader views of players across the Alliance game, nor of the owners who are ultimately in charge of whether or not this is stopped.

It might also be prudent to attend more than a game or two, or reading more than a discussion or two on the forums, before coming to any sort of conclusion on this particular topic.

I think pulling your punches to avoid killing a newbie who attacks you is poor sportsmanship, but not everyone might.
The overall goal one should have when playing Alliance, is helping other people have fun. If it will help someone have fun and feel good, I won't fight as hard, nor will I use all of the skills available to me. The game isn't a competition, it's a game played with friends (sometimes family) to have a good time. If you want competition, I'd suggest checking out Amtgard, which fosters competition in a neat way, or by joining a semi-pro Basketball league or something.

Having rules in place that can mean different things to each player is almost like having no rules at all.
The rules that are open to interpretation in this game are actually few and far between when you consider just how many rules there actually are. And you'll note that those rules that have a little more leeway in them, generally have to do with people interacting with each other on a "human" level - being courteous, being kind, looking out for other people and their well-being, or generally not being a d-bag to others (see my previous paragraph).
 
Top