There should be a downside to attempting this… maybe if you fail the victim gets one of your Goods or some of your Profit or something.

Does adding the good imply that the victim loses it? I think transfer would be a better way to phrase it.

Like the mechanic, but not the implementation. Has a loophole in the duplication of goods (per Raichu) and really there’s no reason NOT to try to steal.

  CoV per RaichuKFM

in favor of better verbiage. Something along the lines of :~

Each player has a security score, which is tracked in the GDNT and has a default value of 40. Once every 72 hours, an Experienced Seller (the ‘thief’) may make a GNDT comment naming a Seller (the ‘victim’) and a Secondhand Good that the victim possesses. In the same GNDT comment the thief must roll DICE99. If the result is less than the security score of the victim, the named Secondhand Good is transferred from the victim to the thief.

(Also, possible impose a fine for failed thievery?)

Doctor29’s point is the key one - if there’s never any reason not to do it, it’s less interesting.

Also some ambiguity as to whether this means only that one player can steal anything, during each 72 hour window, or whether every player can steal something once.

Also, it would make more sense if you had to roll a number greater, not less, than the victim’s security to steal something.

Self killing so that I can add a penalty.

I’ll self-kill this so I can add a stealing penalty.