Ritual Cap for Alliance Deadlands

You won't lose them unless you permanently die, as they won't be in game unless actively being used and therefore stuck to you.
 
the point still remains, a perm because you couldnt protect yourself with the items you spent a season or more gathering resources for to build and make with no warning before casting the rituals and then having to fork them over just because they are not "on your person but still linked or locked to you" most absurd thing i can imagine. as is this policy
 
Last edited:
Rachel, this space is for answering questions about the policy, not venting. The issue of spirit linked items that violate the ritual cap is a thorny one, but we do believe that the solution we have detailed is the best one available. It is, we believe, a better alternative than allowing spirit linked items to violate the cap or randomly transferring to another character or any of a half dozen other solutions that were discussed. Permanently dying would cause a character to lose all items anyway, because the character is dead. What else would you have happen with spirit attached items? If you have a constructive suggestion the staff and I would be more than happy to hear it, but making attacking statements at the chapter's policies and by extension the people who designed them is not productive.

The ritual cap policy is something that we HAVE been talking about for a long time now, and the version detailed in this thread is not the most restrictive iteration we entertained. The entire staff, 10 people, all support the idea of limiting the amount if magic items in the game. The feedback we have gotten from our players has been, predominantly, supportive and encouraging. The game WILL benefit from having a hard limit on ritual effects because doing so allows us to scale back the stat cards of the monsters and other NPCs we send out. When defensive abilities and body/damage numbers come down across the board the game is more accessible for new players and new characters of old players. If someone feels that there are unable or unwilling to play a character because of the ruling on spirit linked items or the policy in general, I would encourage them to play a different character instead. Last season involved the culmination of a massive, epic story arc wherein the fate of the world was very literally in play, and in that environment it was reasonable to have PCs capable of doing unbelievable things by pulling out all the stops. That is not the style of story or game that we will be focusing on going forward. This is the best time to introduce this policy, and also a good time for people to try a different character they don't play as often, or even a brand new one. I do understand that the policy doesn't please everyone, but NOT having such a policy would not have pleased everyone either.

This is the right decision for this chapter. If you, personally, feel it to be a dealbreaker then that is your decision and you will be missed. If you truly feel the policy needs to be adapted in some way then please feel free to raise that opinion civilly here or in any manner you like to me privately. Regardless of your decisions, however, please do not resort to making belittling statements about the chapter or its staff on our forums. It is not appreciated.
 

Surion Maedhros

Newbie
New Hampshire Staff
Marshal
I realize that this scenario is far-fetched, but I suppose it's best to ask before it could possibly become an issue.

How does this magic-item policy interact with in-game theft? I would imagine that if you steal a magic item, then you have to use your "magic item slots" to use it or keep it in game. But if you don't have those free slots, then is it unfair to take a stolen item out of game?

Imagine Alice and Mallory are high-level characters, each with 40 rits of magic items. Mallory steals Alice's 5/day Prison item on Saturday Morning. Come logistics that night, Mallory has 45 rits, and Alice has 35.

Mallory wants to dump that new 5/day item to stay under the cap. Alice, who wants a chance at getting her stuff back, doesn't want her item to magically leave game. Bob, on the other hand, who has plans to fight Mallory later, doesn't want her to violate the 40-rit cap. What should happen in this situation?
 

stonegolem

Scholar
Marshal
Such a scenario would fall under the item acquisition guidelines:
This policy applies to items or ritual effects brought in at initial logistics. Items or ritual effects that were either found or created during the event in question are allowed for the duration of that event even if they would otherwise violate the policy.
The 5/day Prison item does not affect Mallory's ritual total for the purposes of the cap for the duration of the event.

It does continue to affect Alice's ritual total until the next logistics period, whereupon she can replace the lost rituals with other items.

If the item remains in Mallory's possession and she logists it at the next event, it will count toward her ritual cap at that time.

Bob should base his decision to fight people on whether or not the roleplay supports him doing so, not whether or not he thinks he can kick her butt with a rulebook. :)
 
Let it also be clear that although Evan didn't clarify it specifically, it is of course absolutely against the spirit of the policy for items to be wink-wink "stolen" with the intention of allowing a given player to exceed the cap. Any out of game arrangement to do this is expressly not allowed. Anything that the staff perceives to be an effort to circumvent the spirit of the rules while technically within the letter will, of course, not be tolerated; if you're clever enough to find a loophole you're clever enough to know you shouldn't be using it.
 
Top