[4e] Fortune Cards and the future of D&D

[Shatteredtower]

That's a ridiculous argument.
Not at all. No home adventure is dependent on the cards. By that standard, they are not required. WotC declared that the cards aren't a prerequisite for participating in Encounters. Again, the requirement standard is not met. Character survival isn't going to hinge on them, so that's three strikes.

The only requirement is that players who show up at Encounters or a World Wide Game Day with decks of these will be allowed to use them.

Nothing else can be enforced. What would be the point, when all I'd need to do is buy two packs, select ten cards, draw the first, and let it sit unused for the entire encounter?

[Eldan]

Okay, question:
Where, preferably with international shipping, did you get your books for 25$ a piece?

Because I remember when we started. First, we couldn't order them in any store (Toy store: "Sorry, we aren't a bookstore." Bookstore: "Sorry, we aren't a toy store.")
When we finally found someone, they charged nearly 60$ per book for the 3.5 core.

[Kurald Galain]

The point isn't whether they're "mandatory". Indeed, in a home game, the DM can veto them just like he can veto some splatbook or Dragon magazine.

The point is that in store games and convention games, the DM cannot veto their usage, and that at such games, a character with those cards is clearly more powerful than a character without. So this encourages the other players in store/convention games to also buy cards.

Since some cards have drawbacks and other cards do not, making a constructed deck (of only cards with no drawbacks) will again make your character more powerful, so this again encourages people to buy cards.

Exactly how much more powerful isn't the point either. Many 4E players feel that getting a +1 to a die roll is an extremely big deal, so any card that occasionally gives a +1 is going to be perceived as powerful regardless of how statistically strong it actually is.

[DeltaEmil]

If there are really so many people who play at official organized/sanctioned Wizards of the Coast-games where they really wish to get those +1 bonus and whatnot from those cards, then WotC is making the absolute right choice in providing such (potentially lucrative) options.

[Shatteredtower]

Resentment is based on the idea that you have to pay to keep up with everyone else? That's really going to be the argument?

Thus far, the best bonuses are given to high risk cards or those that require the assistance of team mates. Get a Grip even lets you use it on an ally.

Folks, you are not in competition with the rest of your party. Even someone that somehow gains a +2 bonus every round, which always translates into the difference between success and failure on the round's actions, isn't overshadowing you. If anything, that player is missing out on the fun cards, the ones that serve team efforts.

Your efficacy still depends more on how well you work together.

[true_shinken]

Folks, you are not in competition with the rest of your party.
You would be right, except 4e claims to be a balanced game where everyone contributes the same. With the cards, this is just not true - if you spend more money in cards, you'll contribute more.

[OracleofWuffing]

First of all, the cards are mandatory for 'official' games only. Even there, that just means you will be allowed to bring a deck; you aren't required to buy cards to participate.

"For some Wizards Play Network programs aimed at experienced players, Fortune Card purchase will be a requirement to participate..."

Emphasis added. I mean, yes, to be fair, that required purchase is only for those specific games, of which none exist right now, but yes, you will apparently be required to buy cards to participate at such events.

---

My biggest concern right now, now that we're going to get despair decks and treasure decks, is if they're just going to out and out abandon publishing new books in favor of just printing decks. Wanna play steampunk? Just use this new "Gears and Steam Deck" instead of the despair rules! Wanna play in an underwater campaign? Here's a "Sitnalta Deck" of various fortunes and dangers, it's just like playing under the sea! Wanna have a game where everyone gets shrunk for no reason? Pass the "Honey, I Shrunk the Party Deck!"

I mean, I know I'm just looking at the worst possible case here, that there's a good chunk of their audience that just wants to buy the mechanics of such campaign settings, and that nothing indicates that they're actually going to go that far, but I can't imagine keeping the amount of fluff a setting usually has intact when you've just got a deck and maybe some fold-out instructions.

:smallannoyed: That, and these cards aren't compatible with 52-Pickup.

[DeltaEmil]

Don't worry. They'll sell rulebooks with tons of various variants how to play these cards and how to integrate them into your gaming campaign, with labyrinthine rule sections that will need to be errated at least 5 times to work, and a modicum of background lore that is not too specific. And WotC will later sell new cards based on the variant rules that they published in the rulebook for how to play Dungeons&Dragons 4th card edition: "Dungeon: The Dragoneering". Later followed by "Dragon: The Dungeoneeing", shortly before 5th edition D&D is announced.

Joking aside, I seriously doubt that they'll stop printing books. Also, for crunch-specific stuff, I do imagine cards for record-keeping to be a little bit more practical than having to lug around several different books. That trend started at least with Tome of Battle (if not way before), where at least the swordsage had so many maneuvers and the crusader literally draws his powers at random.

[Reverent-One]

You would be right, except 4e claims to be a balanced game where everyone contributes the same. With the cards, this is just not true - if you spend more money in cards, you'll contribute more.

If we're concerned with the difference in contribution that these cards will make, that claim is no more true without these cards. if you buy more books and thus get more options to use, you'll contribute more. If you buy the same number of books and still optimize more than the others, you'll contribute more. If you make better decisions in combat, you'll contribute more. If your dice roll better, you'll contribute more.

[OracleofWuffing]

Don't worry. They'll sell rulebooks with tons of various variants how to play these cards and how to integrate them into your gaming campaign, with labyrinthine rule sections that will need to be errated at least 5 times to work, and a modicum of background lore that is not too specific.

I hope it comes with a deck that I can draw cards from in order to determine which deck I can draw cards from! :smallbiggrin: Which setting has Xzibit in it again?

[Sipex]

I will chime something else in.

Currently, when I play (and DM) we use a pretty big table as it is at the best of times and your average kitchen table the rest of the time. I have anywhere from 4 to 6 players at one time.

Each player has the following taking up space:
- Character sheet
- Notes
- Dice & Writing utensils
- Achievement sheet

Then I have the following taking up space:
- Dice box for rolling in
- Initiative Deck
- DM Screen
- Campaign notes
-- Various maps
-- Character bios
-- To do list
- More dice than god
- Minis
- Status tokens (official wizards product)
- Big pile of tiles, sorted out for ease of access
- Space for whatever battle event might occur (ie: place to set up a tile structure)
- Pile of books
- My DMPCs character sheet
- Space to work

On the small table we already have a lot of trouble with the bare minimum number of players. We have two side tables and I usually have a book on my lap to provide a sturdy work area. Tiles can't be sorted here so I have to hope my players follow the plans or are okay with "Okay, give me 5 minutes to figure this out." if they start something unexpected.

On the large table, with all players I still use a second table to hold the stuff I don't need immediately accessible (ie: Source books and the sorted tile piles).

Where in gods name am I going to fit multiple decks of cards?

edit: My point being is, how much space does the company think it's average gamer has to run a game from? Consider that most of my stuff is either produced by wizards or standard practice amongst any gaming table.

[DeltaEmil]

You have and use more things than I do have for my 3.5 and 4th edition campaign. However, you could probably put them on the books, upon the character sheet, or keep them somewhere around anyway without this being really a problem. Really, it's not like space is only two-dimensional.

[Sipex]

Actually, most of that is true. Anything that can be piled (ie: due to ease of access regardless or the rarity of use) is already piled.

Everything else is accessed too often or can't be piled easily.

In truth I can probably fit some decks of cards but my point is, where does it end? They keep creating products like this which take up space, products which are supposively used together to help enhance your game.

[DeltaEmil]

Reducing the pile of books and only really using the stuff that will be used for sure out of it on "little cards" (:smallamused:) might help a lot.

That, or just put the items away and no need to stress about needing them when it's needed.

[Kurald Galain]

Joking aside, I seriously doubt that they'll stop printing books.

Probably not, but they do seem to be planning more sets of cards than splatbooks for the upcoming year.

[DeltaEmil]

We'll get to see if that will turn out to be more profitable or not. Although organisatory-wise, a few selected cards with detailed information on it are better than an entire book with thousands of detailed stuff that you aren't using right now, when you need to keep track of stuff.
The most probable situation is that they'll sell books together with cards that can be used as reference cards.

Of course, some people just printed the relevant rules-passage they needed or made their own reference cards. But if people really all want to collect official rare and shiny bonus-cards with pretty illustrations, then I can see why this is a good idea to make them.

[Sipex]

In the respect of making cards which replace books I can appreciate that, they really do help. I mean, all my players bought their power cards and as a result, battles are quick and we don't need multiple copies of the PHB nearby.

If these cards work as such in the future (where they come with the books) then I could really appreciate that. For instance, monster cards. They already made them for the minis, why not just release a deck with each Monster Manual? That would save me a ton of room (and time writing up index cards).

I'm just not fond of a totally new mechanic (fortune cards) which take up a new amount of space.

[Tiki Snakes]

That's a good point. Our table is usually groaning under the weight of (the all important) snacks. Something cutting into the snackspace would not be welcome, really. :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

Ah yes, the Despair Deck...

It comes with the Shadowfell boxed set, to be released later this year. This is a single set of cards, not collectible. The cards are divided into several emotions, such as Madness and Apathy; whenever a character comes across a situation that may cause that emotion, the DM can give him a card.

The card gives a minor penalty to the character until he makes a skill check or saving throw to overcome it, at which point it becomes a minor bonus instead. Apparently these bonuses and penalties are less than those on Fortune Cards, and this is intended as a roleplaying aid.

[Callista]

...so the DM tells the player what his character is feeling?

What the...? Seriously? And this is a role-playing aid?

The DM already has enough to worry about without hijacking the PCs, too.

[Reverent-One]

...so the DM tells the player what his character is feeling?

What the...? Seriously? And this is a role-playing aid?

The DM already has enough to worry about without hijacking the PCs, too.

It's not hijacking the PCs, it's placing a magical effect on them (in this case, an effect brought on by the environment of shadowfell).

[kc0bbq]

...so the DM tells the player what his character is feeling?

What the...? Seriously? And this is a role-playing aid?

The DM already has enough to worry about without hijacking the PCs, too.It is when you're in the Shadowfell and it has effects on your emotional state that are not under your control.

[LansXero]

It's not hijacking the PCs, it's placing a magical effect on them (in this case, an effect brought on by the environment of shadowfell).

Ah, kinda like a compulsion effect, I guess? can they resist / prevent it or are otherwise in-character aware of its magical nature? (of course, being handed a card makes you aware of it, but thats not IC).

[kc0bbq]

Ah, kinda like a compulsion effect, I guess? can they resist / prevent it or are otherwise in-character aware of its magical nature? (of course, being handed a card makes you aware of it, but thats not IC).You can't really resist it much, it's the nature of the place. You can avoid areas with stronger effects, that's about it. The place turned ordinary giants into death giants just because they decided to take refuge there.

[Reverent-One]

Ah, kinda like a compulsion effect, I guess? can they resist / prevent it or are otherwise in-character aware of its magical nature? (of course, being handed a card makes you aware of it, but thats not IC).

Yes, they resist it. How aware they are of it IC has not been specified.



The card gives a minor penalty to the character until he makes a skill check or saving throw to overcome it, at which point it becomes a minor bonus instead. Apparently these bonuses and penalties are less than those on Fortune Cards, and this is intended as a roleplaying aid.

[Callista]

Whether magical compulsion or not, it really takes things out of the hands of the player. I can get that dragons or undead or whatever might have Fear auras; that makes sense. I can see that there might be magical effects that cause happiness or despair. But using those things constantly has never been good because the PCs' emotions are generally something the DM should leave to the players. It's one thing to tell everybody that when they see the ancient dragon, they're forced to feel fear... it's another thing to play in a setting where your emotions are pretty much constantly out of your control.

I wouldn't use these whether they were cards or a table, whether I needed to pay for them or not. I do NOT like telling the players what they are feeling. I've had enough issues with people who are used to CRPGs expecting not to be able to be creative in D&D; I don't need anything that'll give them the impression that they're supposed to play along with the story rather than actively creating it.

[Reverent-One]

Whether magical compulsion or not, it really takes things out of the hands of the player. I can get that dragons or undead or whatever might have Fear auras; that makes sense. I can see that there might be magical effects that cause happiness or despair. But using those things constantly has never been good because the PCs' emotions are generally something the DM should leave to the players. It's one thing to tell everybody that when they see the ancient dragon, they're forced to feel fear... it's another thing to play in a setting where your emotions are pretty much constantly out of your control.

I wouldn't use these whether they were cards or a table, whether I needed to pay for them or not. I do NOT like telling the players what they are feeling. I've had enough issues with people who are used to CRPGs expecting not to be able to be creative in D&D; I don't need anything that'll give them the impression that they're supposed to play along with the story rather than actively creating it.

Where has anyone said they'll constantly be under the effects of at least one of these effects? By shaking off these effects, you become more resistant to them as well.

[Kerrin]

Rolling together the Space-On-The-Table and the Format-Of-The-Books topics, personally I would LOVE to have all of my RPG books in indexed and searchable (legitimate) PDF form so I can just load them all on my netbook. Poof, no more huge stack of books under my character sheet or piled on the floor next to my chair. Unfortunately, Wizards of the Coast doesn't make them available that way, though some other game companies do.

Regarding cards... I do print my own 4"x6" cards for some things - my spell user's spells, monster stats for summoning, druid's Wildshape forms, etc. Basically, things that I know I'll need to reference over and over again.

The cards coming out for 4th edition don't really interest me. As some previous folks said, they seem like tables of effects sold as cards.

[Callista]

It just feels too much like they're selling extra junk just to be selling extra junk, you know?

I'd much rather they supported the stuff they already have out. D&D is known for quality, not quantity, and it should stay that way--good quality is the only way to stay in business long-term. Selling a whole bunch of crap may be profitable in the next year, but it won't help you stay in business for the next five, ten, or twenty years.

[kyoryu]

It just feels too much like they're selling extra junk just to be selling extra junk, you know?

I'd much rather they supported the stuff they already have out. D&D is known for quality, not quantity, and it should stay that way--good quality is the only way to stay in business long-term. Selling a whole bunch of crap may be profitable in the next year, but it won't help you stay in business for the next five, ten, or twenty years.

Well, that I'd agree with. And I think that's a lot of the crux of people's issue with these cards.

But things like "making your character feel fear or dread" aren't really relevant to that point - and there've been effects that mimic that for years. "You have to buy them" isn't really relevant either - you don't *have* to buy splats, but people that do are far more likely to find better options than people using just core - in any edition.

While I generally like 4e, I don't like these cards. I don't like the mentality. I stopped playing M:tG for a reason. While I don't mind buying a few books here and there, and I'm even willing to pay $10/mo for the Compendium/etc, I have no desire to get sucked into the "buy boosters to make a playable deck/character" trap. At all.

And that's the core issue.

[Kurald Galain]

Speaking for myself, this is really not something I am willing to spend money on. I'm not convinced that the FC mechanic by itself is a good addition to the game - but if it is, I would simply spend 10-20 minutes making a table with 100 or so random entries, and have the players roll on that. To me, these cards have no added value to a short table I can construct for free by myself.

There is a saturation point beyond which a game needs no further expansions, beyond which they are simply milking the cash cow rather than adding to the game. Did you know that Settlers of Catan has a couple dozen expansions, add-ons, and spin-offs? Yeah. It is possible that 4E is nearing its saturation point, but YMMV on that.

DeltaEmil is correct to point out that this is a clever and potentially lucrative move by WOTC. So by all means, let them; and I hope they'll invest their profits into making something that I do want to buy.

[true_shinken]

It is possible that 4E is nearing its saturation point, but YMMV on that.

I seriously doubt that. 4 has A LOT of space to grow into. They could release extra power books (ki was mentioned inthe PHB, even! an incarnum book would be welcome as well), they could release extra builds on more phb's (I'd like a Dex-based Paladin, an archer Fighter, a dual-wielder Avenger, a cloistered Cleric, etc), they could fill every role for every power source (this is something I believe most of the fanbase would enjoy), they could convert more stuff from previous editions, they could release more adventures (I actually buy 4e adventures for their maps and I don't even play 4e anymore), they could not cancel D&D Minis...
Seriously, there is so much to do besides this stupid cards that the whole idea sounds, well, stupid.

[Shatteredtower]

Emphasis added.
Now tell me how it can be enforced.

A store running the game can make it a requirement, but it can also charge you for the space. Which pays better? Does WotC plan to hire deck inspectors? Could you get away with bringing one Fortune card and nine regular playing cards? Only if you can cheat the shuffle and refuse to draw.

But let's say your DM has to inspect each deck for these games that do not yet exist. In effect, you'd be paying an entry fee to the host store you otherwise were getting at cost to WotC.

To play organized chess, I pay over $40 annually to the national and provincial associations, another $30 for club fees, at least $20 per tournament. If I want to be really competitive, I'm looking at hundreds more in coaching and books, but that is another subject. The point is that if cards are required for event play, you pay $8 for an entry fee that event and every other event that requires them... assuming use can be enforced.

[Kaervaslol]

As I said on another forum.

2e had SpellJammer, Planescape and Dark Sun in order to milk the consumer.

4e offers "Fortune Cards".

Really.

[DeltaEmil]

Everything WotC (and TSR before) does, did, and will be doing is to milk the customer.

[Kaervaslol]

Everything WotC (and TSR before) does, did, and will be doing is to milk the customer.

The point I was trying to make is about the varying quality of the milking. On one hand we have awesome settings. On the other, a CCG.

[Kurald Galain]

Everything WotC (and TSR before) does, did, and will be doing is to milk the customer.
This I don't agree with. Everything beyond what I called the saturation point is milking; everything before that is good or at least decent stuff. And it's very much YMMV where the saturation point lies; call it jumping the shark, if you will.

[DeltaEmil]

Eh, by this comparison, the thing you'd compare the "fortune cards" would be "spellfire"...

Also, SpellJammer Planescape and Dark Sun are niche products that only appealed to a minority, compared to the (god-awful) Forgotten Realms, according to the 2000-survey by Ryan Dancey, and there were other financial flukes like Alternity and Ravenloft, even although these things are liked by what at least seems either a vocal minority, or a potentially lucrative fanbase that is willing to pay premium for that.

[OracleofWuffing]

Now tell me how it can be enforced.

A store running the game can make it a requirement, but it can also charge you for the space. Which pays better? Does WotC plan to hire deck inspectors? Could you get away with bringing one Fortune card and nine regular playing cards? Only if you can cheat the shuffle and refuse to draw.

The way I'd do it is:
"You have a deck? Cool, you've been buying cards, I'll just need to make sure it has at least one attack, one defense, and one tactic. Yup, looks like you're clear, go ahead and magic missile the darkness or whatevers. Next. Oh, you don't have a deck? You'll need to buy two boosters to make a deck right here right now, that'll be $8 or you can go home no loitering or I call the mall cop and he takes you to the principal."

What might also happen is:
"All y'all need to pay a $8 entry fee, and that's just a requirement Wizards has sat and we don't have control over it, but you'll get this free bag of goodies which contains two booster backs and that's enough for you to make a deck for your character if you want to do that. Also, you can slip any of these cards into your current deck before you play, but not during play.

What absolutely will not happen, but I'm going to entertain the thought because hyperoverexaggeration is fun:
Oh, what's that? You have no deck? YOU WILL BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED AT DAWN! Ah, you have a deck? TOO BAD YOUR DECK IS BAD YOU WILL NEED TO BUY NEW CARDS RIGHT HERE. You could have stolen those cards or worse FORGED THEM FROM THE INTERNET we need to see you open the packs right at the table OH YOU DON'T LIKE THE CARDS BUY MORE PACKS NOW well it's not our fault you purchased cards that don't appeal to your character NOW SIT DOWN AND PLAY THE GAME AND HAVE FUN.

As far as deck inspectors, uh... Dude, I think you're thinking the deck rules are more complicated than they really are. Your minimum deck size is ten. The only rule is that you need one of each of the three types of cards. Those restrictions do not take too long to check. That said, what I quoted way back when was to note that they're saying the purchase was, indeed, required for those games which don't yet exist, according to them. I don't know the exact way that they're handling this, but Wizards says that's what they're going to do, so I'm going off what they said. Undoubtedly, there will be a couple FLGS that will say, "Nah, we don't require you to buy more stuff than you already have," but they will be going against Da Rulez, which is punishable by (nothing? Loosing their name on a list? Wet noodle to the wrist?)

I don't think they're going to add any more rules to force you to play with the cards that you must buy, other than insisting that the campaign's soooo haaard that you won't be able to beat it without fortune cards, but time will tell if they add "thou must play thine cards that I ordered thou to buy" to the rules, too.

[Callista]

Well, of course they're trying to make a profit; they're a company. That's what companies do. The question is: Are they trying to make a profit long-term, by putting out a good product that people depend on and buy because they know its quality; or are they just hastily selling a bunch of crap that may give them a profit now but will neither win them the confidence of the consumers nor lead to a stable fan base they can depend on to buy their products in the future?

[true_shinken]

Also, SpellJammer Planescape and Dark Sun are niche products that only appealed to a minority, compared to the (god-awful) Forgotten Realms, according to the 2000-survey by Ryan Dancey, and there were other financial flukes like Alternity and Ravenloft, even although these things are liked by what at least seems either a vocal minority, or a potentially lucrative fanbase that is willing to pay premium for that.

The only niche product you are correct about is Spelljammer.
Planescape and Dark Sun? Those received major support and they have a large fanbase (Dark Sun was voted the second best D&D in the '00s here in Brazil - we were the third largest RPG market in the world by then). Both had major selling games based on them. Planescape kept on through the editions, in the form of Manual of the Planes, Planar Handbooks and the like. Dark Sun? It was released for 4e and - though it's the theme park version of Dark Sun - it's still awesome and seems to be selling pretty well. Ravenloft? Dude, Ravenloft at some point sold more than White Wolf's sacred cow during their run of the setting.
Alternity sucked and they had some very weird 2nd edition suplements (seriously, Of Ships and Sea sucks). So what? Everyone makes mistakes. TSR screwed up in the same way Marvel Comics screwed up and at around the same window of time - printing too much and allowing salers to return it. It was not about the quality and the fanbase, it was about too much at once.

[kyoryu]

There's a difference between fanbase, sales, and profitability.

It really seemed like starting with 3e, WotC realized that rather than sell a boxed set to some subset of DMs, they'd be better off selling power increases (in the form of books) to all of the players. Given a 1:5 DM to player ratio, that's instantly increasing your potential audience by 500%, not to mention the fact that splats are potentially applicable across all games, as opposed to simply the games in a particular setting.

Smart business move.

WHile the Planescape computer game got rave reviews, and is still a classic, I don't think it's sales were that great compared to, say, Baldur's Gate.

The Fortune Cards just further this. I don't like it. It bothers me in a way that splats didn't. But it's not like "sell more power to players" is a new strategy.

[true_shinken]

It really seemed like starting with 3e, WotC realized that rather than sell a boxed set to some subset of DMs, they'd be better off selling power increases (in the form of books) to all of the players. Given a 1:5 DM to player ratio, that's instantly increasing your potential audience by 500%, not to mention the fact that splats are potentially applicable across all games, as opposed to simply the games in a particular setting.
Well, they always did that.
Player's Options Skills and Powers and The Complete Handbook of X were all about giving players more options/power (including the advanced specialization rules and the infamous Bladesinger).

[kyoryu]

Well, they always did that.
Player's Options Skills and Powers and The Complete Handbook of X were all about giving players more options/power (including the advanced specialization rules and the infamous Bladesinger).

That's basically my point, but I guess it did start in 2e.

I don't like this, but let's not pretend the "more money for more power" thing is new.

[true_shinken]

That's basically my point, but I guess it did start in 2e.

I don't like this, but let's not pretend the "more money for more power" thing is new.

Except it's not 'more money for more power'. It's 'more money for more books'. This is specially true in 2e and 3.5 - the most powerful stuff was in the core books. More books gave you more options, very very rarely trumping something from core (like Warblade > Fighter, for example). Heck, even OD&D had it's absurd Bard class on the ende of the Player's Handbook, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong).
4e does this on purpose, it seems. From the first sourcebook, we had powers that were exactly like those in core, except better. Now we have fortune cards.

[Reverent-One]

Except it's not 'more money for more power'. It's 'more money for more books'. This is specially true in 2e and 3.5 - the most powerful stuff was in the core books. More books gave you more options, very very rarely trumping something from core (like Warblade > Fighter, for example). Heck, even OD&D had it's absurd Bard class on the ende of the Player's Handbook, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong).
4e does this on purpose, it seems. From the first sourcebook, we had powers that were exactly like those in core, except better. Now we have fortune cards.

Powers? Plural? What power other than Lasting Threat are you referring to? And yes, buying more books in 3.5 did make you more powerful. Even if we ignore the many boosts non-spellcasters got because someone who merely play a wizard or cleric or druid instead, are you seriously saying a non-core tier one class will not be more powerful than a core one, assuming equal levels of optimization? Besides, what about the "Tier 0" Tainted Scholar, Dweomerkeeper, Planar Shepard, or Illithid Savant? All non-core.

EDIT: Also, am I the only one who can't see true_shinken's avatar anymore? :smallconfused:

[Knaight]

I'm going to have to go against popular opinion here and support these cards. Of course, I also want published D&D to die, WotC to get out of the gaming market, and several companies to actually be fighting for the top spot with very different games, so its more that I hope WotC shoots itself in the foot with this than the idea catches on.

[Shatteredtower]

The way I'd do it is:
"You have a deck? Cool, you've been buying cards, I'll just need to make sure it has at least one attack, one defense, and one tactic. Yup, looks like you're clear, go ahead and magic missile the darkness or whatevers. Next. Oh, you don't have a deck? You'll need to buy two boosters to make a deck right here right now, that'll be $8 or you can go home no loitering or I call the mall cop and he takes you to the principal."
The person running the game is seldom the one minding the store, much less a company representative. If a player can't be bothered to take the extra step, most DMs won't do it for them.

The trick you described could be bested with one pack between two people by the way. Also, you must have at least 30% of your deck dedicated to each card type. As for the second scenario, the fee, if implemented, will be waived for players with a deck. Problem?

This gimmick isn't a game breaker, nor a betrayal of good business practices.

[Velaryon]

Since I don't play 4e, these Fortune Cards will not impact my hobby in any way. And because of that, I am detached enough from the situation to find it all absolutely hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, it seems like a bad idea to me that in no way enhances the quality of the gaming experience. I do not expect this product to be financially successful, and would be surprised if they are still being made a year from now.


EDIT: I stopped reading the thread after page 4, so apologies if somebody already said this. But is anybody else reminded of this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html)?

[Shatteredtower]

But is anybody else reminded of this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html)?
Somewhat, though it's a lot less vexing when you're talking about one to four random options in ten, rather than a score or more of spells you can "draw" automatically.

Look at it this way; one reason some players complained about long fights because they'd run out of choices other than at-will powers after a few rounds. Here's one way even less innovative players can avoid that in a finale that runs to five or more rounds.

Callista, the Shadowfell deck reminds me of the dangers of the Grey Wastes/Hades back in 1/2e, except better balanced. Really, it would have to be.

[OracleofWuffing]

The person running the game is seldom the one minding the store, much less a company representative. If a player can't be bothered to take the extra step, most DMs won't do it for them.
Actually, when a store agrees to host a Wizards Play Network program, they also agree that they will provide an organizer with sufficient expertise to run the program. In all WPN scenarios (and all of the mandatory-purchase events we're concerned about will be WPN scenarios), the person running the game is supposed to be associated with the store. Sure, a store or a dm could violate this agreement and chances are they wouldn't get caught, but that's a legal/ethical matter.


The trick you described could be bested with one pack between two people by the way. Also, you must have at least 30% of your deck dedicated to each card type.
Let me revise that. Your DM will have to count that the total amount of cards in your deck totals at least ten. And that you have at least three of each card type (I hadn't heard this rule before, or if I did, I didn't retain it. Might I have the source?). Since it takes approximately a minute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZshZp-cxKg) to learn how to count to twelve, please understand from where I'm coming when I say, this is not a big hassle to check at all. Heck, it's easier to check than character sheet legality by a longshot.


As for the second scenario, the fee, if implemented, will be waived for players with a deck. Problem?
I remind you, that second scenario was a hypothetical situation completely fabricated by me and by no means official, and I'm not saying that IS what's going to happen and I'm not saying Wizards said that'll happen. However, I did not suggest waiving the fee in that situation, and I see no reason to wave the fee if you bring a deck. You still get cards, you gotta pay for them. You don't want cards? You go home. You can still play with your deck, and you can choose not to use any of the cards you got with your "free" package, but you're going to pay $8 and get two free booster packs.

It is my understanding that they did this format a few times when they did the Pokemon TCG official tournaments, back when they handled the game. (And I am also under the impression it has somewhat carried on to the Nintendo tournaments, but that's another company and another topic altogether).

Edit: Come to think of it, though, it doesn't really matter. If you have a deck, somebody presumedly purchased the cards and thus the purchase was mandatory. Though now the situation is basically identical to the first situation.


This gimmick isn't a game breaker, nor a betrayal of good business practices.
I can't say it's not a game breaker until I see Wizards' hand (har-har!). I reiterate, though, that until we actually see this ultra-difficult store option, they're the only authority, sadly enough, on this matter, and they say it's required to succeed. While I doubt that claim, I can't go any farther than personal doubt, and it does certainly sound like they want it to be a gamebreaker. Granted, it's probably hot air.

[SiuiS]

Skipped the rest of the thread after this;

Are Encounters that hard that characters need what probably amounts to three extra utilities? I'm said to be a mean DM, but I don't even think I'd run a single encounter like that.
I would. I totally would.
Out of all the things I've done in 4e, the most awesome and memorable were when the players had their backs to a wall, and were sweating bullets.
Exhibit A: level one party at full health, a bunch of rats and rat swarms (mostly CR 3) leaving everyone wounded and dropping some of em (temporarily)

Exhibit B: level 1 characters being beset by flaming scorpions in a room with a gorge that "slowly" fills with lava, giving them approximately 15 rounds to defeat/escape from their foes, cross a 20 square gorge, and not burn to death from the heat as thy jump from floating rock to floating rock.

Anything that let's me A) do this and B) still have like, 8-12 encounters per level is awesome.

[Shatteredtower]

Actually, when a store agrees to host a Wizards Play Network program, they also agree that they will provide an organizer with sufficient expertise to run the program.

That means very little when it comes to a new mechanic. There's a big difference between using these cards in a D&D game and running a MtG event.


In all WPN scenarios (and all of the mandatory-purchase events we're concerned about will be WPN scenarios), the person running the game is supposed to be associated with the store.

Define "association" as it pertains to this point. Employee? Regular customer? Irregular customer who has nevertheless been recommended by customers who've vouched for the individual's skill?

All of the above. Anything beyond "unknown soul that walked in off the street" qualifies.


Let me revise that. Your DM will have to count that the total amount of cards in your deck totals at least ten.

Among other things, under time pressure. I can turn away all the players that show up five minutes after the posted starting time, but when that tends to be 60-75% of the participants, it's kind of bad form. I could certainly review the dozen decks and character sheets while getting the other DMs set up, answer player questions, and at least try to be sociable, but I'd also like to be home before ten, so I can manage at least six hours of sleep before work.

Again, the effort to enforce it isn't worth the hassle to the people you'll have running the game. If all you had to do was count cards, then great, but micromanagers don't tend to run D&D games that well.


(I hadn't heard this rule before, or if I did, I didn't retain it. Might I have the source?).

It's printed in the rules that come with the cards.


I remind you, that second scenario was a hypothetical situation completely fabricated by me and by no means official, and I'm not saying that IS what's going to happen and I'm not saying Wizards said that'll happen.

Right, because it won't. The fee is "You must have a ten card deck" -- or it will be, if WotC ever runs a program that requires the cards. Maybe they will, but it's not the next season of Encounters. Talk is we'll see in September, which is surprisingly far away for this sort of thing.

And if they did charge people to play official events, what of it? You do it for baseball, even after the equipment's been bought, as you do it for chess. You can play either of these things for free, of course, but the opportunities tend to be smaller.


I can't say it's not a game breaker until I see Wizards' hand (har-har!). I reiterate, though, that until we actually see this ultra-difficult store option, they're the only authority, sadly enough, on this matter, and they say it's required to succeed.

Yeah, that's hyperbole. Of the 20% of the deck I've got, not one of these cards spells can reliably spell the difference between life and death.

I'll be surprised if the proposed events even have death be more than a temporary inconvenience for players, for reasons that are unfortunately too understandable. I haven't met many players that stick around, let alone continue to pay attention after their characters die. It's kind of like watching a Boromir fan stop reading near the end of The Fellowship of the Ring because there's no longer a point in seeing how it ends.


Out of all the things I've done in 4e, the most awesome and memorable were when the players had their backs to a wall, and were sweating bullets.

Players tend to enjoy being pushed to their limit regularly. Not constantly, but it's how you measure the memorable battles.

The more they do, and the more they have to do to survive, the better it will have been in their memory.

The trick is for them to look to what they can do even when the encounter isn't so difficult.

[OracleofWuffing]

A thought occurs to me that I am both frightened and intrigued at the concept of rule 34 smiting the despair deck. :smalleek:

---


That means very little when it comes to a new mechanic. There's a big difference between using these cards in a D&D game and running a MtG event.
I was talking about a Wizards Play Network event, which I am inclined to believe would fall closer to a MtG event than using a new mechanic.


Define "association" as it pertains to this point.
An individual that store management requests to handle WPN events to the expertise requested of Wizards of the Coast.


Among other things, under time pressure. I can turn away all the players that show up five minutes after the posted starting time, but when that tends to be 60-75% of the participants, it's kind of bad form. I could certainly review the dozen decks and character sheets while getting the other DMs set up, answer player questions, and at least try to be sociable, but I'd also like to be home before ten, so I can manage at least six hours of sleep before work.
The game you're playing requires you to roll dice and add or subtract numbers many times in a session as well as identify which of two numbers is the larger one. I think you'll be able to handle the pressure of counting without too much trouble. Come to think of it, I hear counting helps a number of people fall asleep. :smallwink:
Furthermore, turning away 60-75% of the participants means that you have to manage much fewer players, so that's a win for you and your schedule. My apologies for echoing the sentiment that has been repeatedly expressed in the thread, but I don't think Wizards really cares if you do something in bad form when the 40-35% remaining repeatedly buys more official merchandise than those that just bought a book or two way back when.


The fee is "You must have a ten card deck" -- or it will be, if WotC ever runs a program that requires the cards. Maybe they will, but it's not the next season of Encounters. Talk is we'll see in September, which is surprisingly far away for this sort of thing.
I think we've both established the point that it's still a long ways away before the policies that Wizards says are going to go in effect are actually going to go in effect and they're only going in effect on specific events. Counterantidisirregardless, the fact that the rules aren't yet in place does not mean much when Wizards has a big Sales article saying that the rules are going to go in place.


And if they did charge people to play official events, what of it?
I turn my PHB to page 9 and demand to see errata for the "Game Books and Dice" section, of course. :smalltongue: I'm certain a similar jest could be made about the Essentials set and how it no longer contains the essentials if you want to play D&D 4e at a WPN event ten thousand years in the future, but I don't have that set on me right now.


Yeah, that's hyperbole. Of the 20% of the deck I've got, not one of these cards spells can reliably spell the difference between life and death.
If they really wanted to, they really could. "On hit, this attack does 1d4 fire damage and the target may either discard a fortune card and not draw a new fortune card on his or her next turn, or suffer a hunderd [sic] ongoing damage for 10 turns." Or if they really wanted to be nasty, "The DC for this level 1 challenge is (whatever CharOp has for the highest achievable skill roll result without cards) +1."
That said, I don't believe they said that the cards would make it easy to "win", for lack of a better term (yes, I know, everyone who plays D&D wins. Except Joe Snaglinghorn. He's a loser), so reliability isn't actually a concern for that road, you'll probably die a few times even with cards if they actually deliver on their promises. Oh! Hey! I know! It's a Terrasque but it has an umbrella to protect itself from falling rocks! :smalltongue:

Edit: :smalleek: ... Oh my gosh I think I just figured out the Monster in the Darkness.

[Shatteredtower]

So association doesn't require so much as an hour long training course or a background check, even if neither is a bad idea. As for player retention, 75% of 12 players leaves barely enough for one table, not really the goal WotC wants when the next season's Encounters awards reknown points to those bringing in new players... for yet another 1st level adventure.

Curiously, that program also provides two booster packs each for up to six players per module. I don't know what to make of the Twitter feed additions, but plan to disregard them as a disruption. They have a disturbing level of faith in these cards, considering how many they're giving away. (I've got three more packs on top of that without spending a dime.) Will allowing their use encourage people to buy their own? Frankly, I'm surprised at how much they've spent on Encounters to date.

[Kurald Galain]

From play reports, we get the following:


Card distribution is irregular. Buying two boosters, you're likely to end up with e.g. 3 attack cards, 4 defense cards, and 9 tactics; whereas you need an equal amount of each for a constructed deck.
The cards significantly (but not excessively) slow down gameplay, and not just because players are unfamiliar with them.
Using a random deck makes the game more dependent on luck.
Using a random deck doesn't make your character noticeably more powerful, because you're very likely to draw a card that either doesn't work well for your class, or isn't needed that turn.
Using a constructed deck does make your character significantly more powerful, because there are cards that are (almost) always useful for your kind of character; you just need to collect a bunch of those.
The good cards tend to be uncommon or rare.
Several cards work on basic attacks only; that means these are primarily useful for the 4.4 classes that don't have encounter or daily attacks.
Players who don't use the cards tend to want nobody else on their table to use the cards either; this is expected to cause issues in organized play.

[true_shinken]

From play reports, we get the following:

I expected all of that to happen.

[Reverent-One]

From play reports, we get the following:


Using a constructed deck does make your character significantly more powerful, because there are cards that are (almost) always useful for your kind of character; you just need to collect a bunch of those.


Citation needed.

[Kurald Galain]

I expected all of that to happen.
Well, yeah. Most of it is extremely predictable, either as a deliberate design choice to sell more cards (e.g. that rares are better), or as an automatic consequence (of course introducing a random draw is going to increase randomness, duh).

It does feel a lot like 4.4 didn't sell as well as expected, so WOTC is trying something else now, which I find kind of funny. Overall these cards don't really bother me, but I'm not going to buy them either. What does bother me is the steady decline of Dragon content.

[Shatteredtower]

Opening twelve shuffled packs now, giving results by each two opened:

3a, 3d, 2t plus 2a, 2d, 4t
3a, 1d, 4t plus 3a, 3d, 2t
1a, 4d, 3t plus 1a, 4d, 2t
2a, 2d, 4t plus 2a, 4d, 2t
1a, 3d, 4t plus 3a, 3d, 2t
1a, 2d, 4t plus 1a, 4d, 2t

So, one pair in three came up an attack card short as five of twelve packs had only one attack card. Half the packs had the one card problem, with one of them short on defense. Nothing a group shouldn't be able to sort out internally, if a third pack is too costly.

I'm more concerned with Stroke of Luck, as how do you shuffle a deck with a marked card honestly.

[Shatteredtower]

I see now. Stroke of Luck doesn't go in the deck, it's something you get from another card that triggers off irrevocable failure.

Still not seeing the cards that would seriously uprade a specific character build.

[true_shinken]

Still not seeing the cards that would seriously uprade a specific character build.

What about that +2 to at wills? It's a Slayer's wet dreams come true.

[Shatteredtower]

What about that +2 to at wills? It's a Slayer's wet dreams come true.

"I believe you overestimate their chances."

An adequately built striker will find such cards providing a worthwhile boost less often than you think. It's a meaningless boost nine times out of ten, worse if you only miss on a roll of 2 or less.

By all means, if you want that security, stack a deck to 40% capacity with it, go ahead. I just think you miss out on too much with that approach.

[true_shinken]

It's a meaningless boost nine times out of ten, worse if you only miss on a roll of 2 or less.
Is it possible to do that as a Slayer? :smallconfused:
I've been out of the 4e charop environment for a good two years, but getting all your hits on a 2 was very very hard back then; only possible for a Rogue/Ranger Daggermaster with Imperilling Strike. I seriously doubt Slayers don't need an edge to-hit - and even if they don't need (which I seriously doubt it), there is Power Attack and a Slayer's stance to convert those +2 to damage.

[Kurald Galain]

Is it possible to do that as a Slayer? :smallconfused:
Not particularly, no.

The point is that it's not important whether an occasional plus two is a big deal in 4E, but it's important whether the players in general feel that this bonus is a big deal. And, judged by character building threads, many people do indeed feel that. Indeed, it's quite common for people to claim that a character missing a +1 to-hit somewhere is so weak it's not worth playing.

[Shatteredtower]

Is it possible to do that as a Slayer? :smallconfused:
Not the point. The ratio otherwise remains constant for everything a 20 counts as a critical hit.


I seriously doubt Slayers don't need an edge to-hit - and even if they don't need (which I seriously doubt it), there is Power Attack and a Slayer's stance to convert those +2 to damage.
Even there, the card only makes a difference one in ten times. That's fine for a reliable bonus, one that's either constant or generally easy to acquire at any time.

A reroll card is more likely to help in most cases, which is why Reckless Onslaught and Keep at It also have drawbacks. Fair Fight is otherwise an improvement on similar cards, but anyone that kept buying packs just because Exposed Target, Full Speed Ahead, and Phantom Ally are too situational to be its match are missing out.

[Shatteredtower]

The point is that it's not important whether an occasional plus two is a big deal in 4E, but it's important whether the players in general feel that this bonus is a big deal.

If there's a problem there, the fault lies entirely in the players, not the system.

If I showed up for a game with a deck and someone whined that I had an unfair advantage, I'd say, "Then you can have my deck for the next encounter."

Why would I do this? Because it does not matter who gets the +2 bonus or the reroll opportunity. It's a team game! People who don't realise that aren't ready to play it.

Seriously, I'd be inclined to bring a deck for everyone at the table and go without myself, if it wasn't for the realisation that I was wasting my afternoon indulging a bunch of jealous obsessives who don't understand the point of playing as part of a team.

The game should not cater to the small-minded at the expense of anyone else's fun.

[true_shinken]

If I showed up for a game with a deck and someone whined that I had an unfair advantage, I'd say, "Then you can have my deck for the next encounter."
Sorry, that simple doesn't work.
So you have your all powerful Slayer deck. Then the Avenger player is kind of 'oh, that's unfair, he does everything I can better because of the cards'. Then you lend him the deck... and it does nothing for him, because it's not made for Avengers.

And really, saying 'the problem is on the players' is against 4e design philosophy. If you actually considered reasonable players who are willing to play a team game, you wouldn't need to obsess about balance; there is a reason D&D worked just fine for 30 years without it.

[Reverent-One]

And really, saying 'the problem is on the players' is against 4e design philosophy. If you actually considered reasonable players who are willing to play a team game, you wouldn't need to obsess about balance; there is a reason D&D worked just fine for 30 years without it.

Aren't you and Kurald the ones obsessing about balance here? Shatteredtower isn't the one going on about how powerful these cards are and how they'll boost the power of certain builds, to the point where they'll overshadow those without them.

[true_shinken]

Aren't you and Kurald the ones obsessing about balance here? Shatteredtower isn't the one going on about how powerful these cards are and how they'll boost the power of certain builds, to the point where they'll overshadow those without them.
I just don't see how that is relevant. What I'm saying is that design is a major point of 4e design and the Fortune Cards do disrupt it. 'Play nice and they don't' is not relevant, because when you 'play nice' balance is irrelevant.

[Reverent-One]

I just don't see how that is relevant. What I'm saying is that design is a major point of 4e design and the Fortune Cards do disrupt it. 'Play nice and they don't' is not relevant, because when you 'play nice' balance is irrelevant.

I must have misunderstood you then, apologies. That said, I'm still not seeing how these cards disrupt 4e's balance. If an extra +2 to hit about a third of a encounter is enough to throw off the balance, then one player being more tactically minded and getting CA consistently while another player almost never gets CA would throw it off. I have yet to see or hear about such an imbalance cropping up in games.

[true_shinken]

I must have misunderstood you then, apologies.
Nevermind, it happens in the best families.


That said, I'm still not seeing how these cards disrupt 4e's balance. If an extra +2 to hit about a third of a encounter is enough to throw off the balance, then one player being more tactically minded and getting CA consistently while another player almost never gets CA would throw it off. I have yet to see or hear about such an imbalance cropping up in games.
I think here it is a case of personal bias of mine. See, there are better choices - both during character creation and during the game. They are not perfectly balanced; they are a lot better balanced than it ever was in D&D, but balance is still not perfect (Some builds are just better than others - Battlerager Fighter post-errata is pretty weak, for example, and Tiefling Fighter sucked hard before the introduction of a few feats). I'm fine with that (that's just personal opinion) - everyone has access to the books and stuff. Martial Power adds options to your Fighter and to the newbie's Ranger - he just has to flip through your book before the session.
Fortune Cards are something you get for yourself, can't share and they make you more powerful. They don't break the game (very few things break the game in 4e - I believe they were all errata'd anyway), but they give you an edge. This choice (the publishing of Fortune cards) is not something done with balance on mind.

[Welknair]

WotC, I am disappoint. :smallannoyed:

[Shatteredtower]

Sorry, that simple doesn't work.

Sure it does, since I know better than to waste time building an "all-powerful" slayer deck. Fast food thinking, in which everyone is in such a rush that every fight tastes the same, with the nuances of the battlefield unsavoured, is not for me. Why would I waste my time on a deck designed for that? (Never mind how rarely such a deck would make a difference...)

At the end of the night, the avenger whines about how useless my cards were to that character, and I shake my head at people who miss the point and the opportunities in front of them.

Give me half damage from a fall with an upright landing and I will look for the chance to throw my character from a height. A +2 bonus is okay, maybe, but how does it make the game more interesting?

[Callista]

WotC, I am disappoint. :smallannoyed:Well... not every product they've put out has been successful. There's got to be some that fall flat. But you'd think they could've predicted this...

[Shatteredtower]

Well... not every product they've put out has been successful. There's got to be some that fall flat. But you'd think they could've predicted this...

People griping? Sure. Gripers buying up the product anyway, in the self-deluded belief they'll be left behind if they don't? Absolutely.

I'd still wager they still put this out because they expect people to have fun with this. If LFR's or Encounters' use of cards to date is any indicator, they have a point.

I think Twitter support for the decks during Encounters is taking it too far, but we'll see how that goes.

[Callista]

Nowadays, the gripers are far more likely to pirate the product, actually.

Or, y'know, just not buy it because they know they don't want it.

WotC is going to have to deal with the fact that people won't buy things they don't want--they'll just download them off the Internet to try them out and toss them if they don't like them.

In order to succeed, they can't just make a product people will try and toss; they have to make a product people will want to keep--because that's the only thing that'll make them buy books. Trying things out doesn't require a purchase anymore, thanks to the Internet. It didn't really require a purchase before, because you could share with friends; but somebody in the group had to buy it... now, nobody does, and if nobody likes it, then the file gets deleted and the books stay in the stores.

I don't see pirating going away anytime in the future. The only real way to combat it is to produce things that people want to own, in real paper format, not just as a poorly-scanned pdf.