(Sorry for the long post, I didn’t plan to write so much on such a unimportant thing. )
In my opinion, if you decide to remove the basic accessibilty rule, then you know you are messing with something “dangerous”, so you wouldn’t need an additional safeguard (as matt implied). On the contrary, that safeguard becomes a hindrance if you remove the basic accessibilty rule specifically to allow the taking action to succeed in such cases. And why only the taking action has this protection, and not every other action requiring a touchable noun?
In your example, you don’t need to remove the basic accessibility rule. You should just add the things in other rooms and in the locked boxes to scope when holding the orb (or make the boxes transparent) and write a rule for reaching inside (section “Changing reachability” of the “Advanced Actions” chapter).
I can only see two reasons for the can’t take items out of play rule: it was useful before (because the basic accessibilty rule worked differently) and it wasn’t removed (it was forgotten or something); or it is useful in some edge case where the basic accessibility doesn’t apply (but I can’t think of one).
After some reasearch, I found that the rule that really makes the action fail is the
access through barriers rule, which is called by the
basic accessibility rule.
access through barriers rule is more specific than the
can't take items out of play rule (it also takes account of closed containers amongst other things), so we could imagine a scenario where you’d remove the
can't access through barriers rule because you’d want the player to be able to take things inside closed containers and other rooms, but not things out of play.
But in that case, as I wrote above, you don’t have to mess with all the low-level machinery: you could just use a rule for reaching inside (this rulebook is invoked by the
can't reach through barriers rule).
The more I search, the more it seems that the
can't take things out of play rule is some kind of leftover that wasn’t removed.
Well, I may have put way too much effort in this issue… But still, it looks like it’s worth a small bug report? (not a really important one, but still.)