Nothing in the rules allowes you to do that directly.
Though you could treat his character as having died during a game.
Then you get to add his cards into the pile when you reset your deck at the end of the game.
Nothing in the rules allowes you to do that directly.
Though you could treat his character as having died during a game.
Then you get to add his cards into the pile when you reset your deck at the end of the game.
One step of setting up:
Trade Cards If You Like. Before beginning a scenario, players may freely
trade cards from their character decks. After trading, each character deck
must still conform to the list of card types specified by the character card.
So, using this, someone could just trade the item out for another item in one of the party's decks.
Granted, the deck -should- be playing in the scenario, and in this instance, if they wanted, one of the players could run two characters, but it sounds like that's not quite necessary because of the circumstances.
I'd agree. The rules aren't able to cover every possible real life contingency. I'd allow anyone to swap 1 of their cards with 1 of the now absent character's cards of the same type. It isn't in the rules, but the rules aren't designed to cover everything that might ever possible impact the game.
Well, I think everyone that has posted agrees though, in some way it is ok to transfer those cards to other characters. Through no fault of the remaining players, you are in a situation where unique cards are in a deck you can't access and you have no way to gain access to them in anyway provided in the rules.
It isn't like you are regretting not keeping the loot. You gave it to a player and that player never returned. The rest of your group shouldn't be punished for that.
One of the design team's metarules about social contracts is: "No one's going to prison, son."
The rules are there to describe what happens when everything in your gaming group works as you want it to. They matter, because the game only holds together under the principles described in the rulebook. But when something doesn't work like you want it to—say, a player with a loot card doesn't come back—you should just do what makes everyone in the group want to keep playing. So I suggest you deal with the problem, don't sweat the details, and move on.
What about the original question of passed up loot? If noone chooses a card as a reward, there is no way to ever get it back, correct (just assume we are talking about a 1-off loot, not the medallion)?
If this is the case, can you replay the scenario to obtain the loot again, since, technically, no one claimed the reward?
You could always build a one-off character to go through the scenario with you. Since that character has never completed the scenario before it would get the loot which could then be passed to another character. Feels very cheaty though.
It goes back to the rule that Choices Matter. You chose not to take the loot and that is what you have to deal with going forward.
|
The only thing that our group does is if we complete a scenario and divy up the cards then the next time we meet if someone decides they changed their mind about an item or loot we had gotten the prior time, we allow the exchange. Sometimes people change their minds.
But definitely not creating a throw-away character to collect loot that the party gave up. It does feel cheaty. As long as it is in between scenarios, fine. Otherwise it is gone.
I've considered - although not actually tried out - a House Rule that once a Loot card is passed up, it goes into the box as the type of boon it is (Weapon, Item etc.) so that it can re-circulate into future scenarios. I'm not really sure why this would break anything. I don't think this would break anything. It certainly wouldn't give any guarantee that you'd have access to those cards ever again...
The only issue is that they don't have checks to acquire. You'd have to rule that they would be acquired automatically if encountered in the scenario.
I don't think there was a time when my wife and I dropped a loot that we later wanted and snatched it back, but I also think I wouldn't be opposed to it if the situation came up.
I'd definitely do that in favor of constructing a situation where you all drag a defunct character through a game before you're "officially" allowed to take the loot back. That just feels a little pointless to me. If all you're doing is running the scenario so you conform to the letter of the law, I'd rather skip to the part where I'm playing the game I want to play.
That being said... If it's obligation, no way, but if it's done for fun, I'm all for it. If you'd actually enjoy dragging a dead weight new character through a high level scenario, that's a different story. :D I've done stupid or foolish things in this game just because I enjoy the mechanisms, as opposed to circumventing the rules to get what I want (it's as easy as snatching it from the box, after all). Start doing that, and the game wanders into loot-crazed Diablo territory: well I'm not enjoying the actual mechanics of playing the game, but I sure do want more loot.
The only issue is that they don't have checks to acquire. You'd have to rule that they would be acquired automatically if encountered in the scenario.
That's already in the rules on pg 24.
Chief Technical Officer
|
If a loot card is returned to the box, put it back with the other
loot cards. If a loot card ends up in a location deck, you automatically
acquire it when you encounter it.
The latter sentence was put in place because in S&S, there is actually a way that a loot card can be yanked out of your hand and shoved into a location deck, so we had to tell you how you can get it back. (We chose something easy because when that thing happens, you're already in a bad situation: you will lose that loot permanently if you don't manage to encounter it before the end of the scenario.)
But that doesn't play nicely with Cintra's house rule suggestion, as it means loot that somebody has passed up would now be the easiest thing to acquire in the game (along with Blessing of the Gods), and it really shouldn't be.