PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Fortune Cards and the future of D&D



Pages : [1] 2

true_shinken
2011-01-16, 10:44 PM
OK, so Wizards of the Coast is going to release Fortune Cards in randomized booster packs for D&D. You get a deck, you draw from it and they are meant to represent 'blind luck' (I wonder what critical hits and dice are for, then). They will be required for some Wizards Play Network Programs.
Relevant info here (http://www.wizards.com/WPN/Sales/Article.aspx?x=fortune_cards_shadows).

Now, my opinion (warning - long rant) This is dumbest thing I ever saw in the gaming industry ever (and the gaming industry in my country gets pretty dumb, I might add). It's crazy, but it even seems like WotC is trying to push the old players away. If I got on a game with this, where a guy suddenly succeeds at anything because he spent all his money on cards, I'd be disgusted. OK, the cards won't allow you to succeed at anything, but you get my meaning - basically, spending more money means you get a better character. This is not like sourcebooks, they just present options - even in 4e, some of the stronger stuff is from the PHB. Archer Ranger is still the best in damage and even after nerfs Blade Cascade is still the best Ranger power of it's level. 4e was already awkward with 'I spend more money, so I'm better' with a few new powers that made others useless, but this? I want to play D&D, I don't want to play Magic the Gathering!
I like some stuff in 4e. I could play in 4e games if I don't think about things much. I played in two 4e campaigns. They were okay (well, one of'em was, at least). There is many things about 4e that I dislike though. But this things? Fortune cards? I despise it. It seems like a dirty move of WotC, a way to drain every cent from new D&D players because many people won't even know you don't need those booster packs to play. I'm just, I don't know, angry doesn't describe it. I'm disappointed and I'm afraid.
I really think WotC will end up killing D&D this way. Essentials is apparently selling badly, since they canceled so many books. They canceled the minis lines. Now they have these cards. What's the next steps? Cancel the books? Cancel the dice? Cancel character sheets?

Reverent-One
2011-01-16, 10:55 PM
*Shrugs*

If you don't like them, don't use them and don't go to the events that will require them. Yes, it's a way to WoTC to get more money, but that's pretty much what they're expected to do, being a company and all, so while I don't plan on using them, I simply don't care about them.

kyoryu
2011-01-16, 11:03 PM
I don't mind the "if I have more stuff, I have more options available to me" thing - that's been the case since 2nd ed, after all. I mean, are you really going to tell me you can build just as great of a character with only core 3.x as with all the splatbooks? Didn't think so.

But, I really don't like this idea. It just "feels" wrong to me for some reason.

true_shinken
2011-01-16, 11:06 PM
I don't mind the "if I have more stuff, I have more options available to me" thing - that's been the case since 2nd ed, after all. I mean, are you really going to tell me you can build just as great of a character with only core 3.x as with all the splatbooks?
I don't have a problem with more options. I have a problem with more power. It's hard to find stuff in 3.x that is more powerful than what you get in core; it's where you find Druid, Wizard and Cleric, for crying out loud.




If you don't like them, don't use them and don't go to the events that will require them. Yes, it's a way to WoTC to get more money, but that's pretty much what they're expected to do, being a company and all, so while I don't plan on using them, I simply don't care about them.
Of course I won't use them. I just presented my personal opinion on why I dislike and I find it agravating as one more turn in a possible death of D&D in a roleplaying game. And please, of course they should get money, but to get money from D&D, you should make good D&D material.
I really think this won't sell. I can't think of a way why anyone would want this, really.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-16, 11:07 PM
It's important to point out that Fortune Cards are not a requirement for D&D play; they are an enhancement that simulates blind luck, the winds of fate, or divine influence.... For some Wizards Play Network programs aimed at experienced players, Fortune Card purchase will be a requirement to participate, but our broadly-appealing programs like D&D Encounters will feature their use without such a requirement.

Ah, so it's not so much that you will have to play the card, as much as you'll need to buy a deck. I mean, it's only a smaller turd on the waffles, but it's still a smaller turd.

I'd like to see some more rules on things before I throw my flaming pitchfork, like how big the deck size is and how many cards are drawn per encounter. I mean, honestly, I'm not going to any Wizards Play Network games anyways, so it really doesn't matter to me except maybe a few people in my group will go "Dude you totally need to buy some cards so you can stay alive and keep healing us," to which the response will be, "after I get a job, mkay?"

I just hope it doesn't devolve into Type-2, Unlimited, and Purple Monkey Dishwasher play. YES I KNOW IT IS COMPETITIVELY AND MECHANICALLY SOUND BUT DANG IT I DON'T LIKE IT.

At least, you know, it's cards produced by a company that was already producing cards for another product, it probably doesn't cost them all that much to make them. And, I guess, if you really wanted to stretch things, you could just call it a buff to the Deck of Many Things and call it a day.

Reverent-One
2011-01-16, 11:11 PM
I don't have a problem with more options. I have a problem with more power. It's hard to find stuff in 3.x that is more powerful than what you get in core; it's hwere you find Druid, Wizard and Cleric, for crying out loud.

But if you're playing a non-tier one, and especially a melee fighting type, character, there's lots of powerful stuff you get from the splatbooks. Yes, the main overpowered stuff in 3.5 is in core, but that doesn't mean there isn't any outside of it by a long shot.

true_shinken
2011-01-16, 11:17 PM
But if you're playing a non-tier one, and especially a melee fighting type, character, there's lots of powerful stuff you get from the splatbooks. Yes, the main overpowered stuff in 3.5 is in core, but that doesn't mean there isn't any outside of it by a long shot.
Yes, you get a lot of options. But that doesn't mean a guy that bought, dunno, Tome of Battle will always be able to play a more powerful character than the one who bought only the PHB. I'm fine with that.
3.x has a lot of problems, no arguing that. This thread is not about edition wars anyway - it's about WotC weird decisions towards the D&D line.

tcrudisi
2011-01-16, 11:21 PM
But that doesn't mean a guy that bought, dunno, Tome of Battle will always be able to play a more powerful character than the one who bought only the PHB. I'm fine with that.

A person who buys the deck will not always play a more powerful character than someone who didn't buy the deck. If I optimize a Ranger without a deck, I'll still undoubtedly be a more effective character than an un-optimized Seeker with a deck.

/edit - And it's not archer Rangers that are top DPR, but rather two-weapon Rangers.

DragonBaneDM
2011-01-16, 11:29 PM
Yes, you get a lot of options. But that doesn't mean a guy that bought, dunno, Tome of Battle will always be able to play a more powerful character than the one who bought only the PHB. I'm fine with that.


Yeah! Cause he'd share Tome of Battle with his friends! That way they all have optimized characters. :smallbiggrin:

Meh, these cards are quite silly. If that artwork was in, say...Divine Power 2, I'd pay money for that instead.

Reverent-One
2011-01-16, 11:31 PM
Of course I won't use them. I just presented my personal opinion on why I dislike and I find it agravating as one more turn in a possible death of D&D in a roleplaying game. And please, of course they should get money, but to get money from D&D, you should make good D&D material.
I really think this won't sell. I can't think of a way why anyone would want this, really.

I really don't see much demand for the cards either. On the other hand, they're probably cheap to make, so it's (theoretically) a quick and easy way to make money.


Yes, you get a lot of options. But that doesn't mean a guy that bought, dunno, Tome of Battle will always be able to play a more powerful character than the one who bought only the PHB. I'm fine with that.

3.x has a lot of problems, no arguing that. This thread is not about edition wars anyway - it's about WotC weird decisions towards the D&D line.

Edition wars? This has nothing to do with that, the idea that you're not more powerful in 3.5 with splatbooks than with just core would be strange to me even if you said it before 4e ever existed.

Benly
2011-01-16, 11:35 PM
The problem with fortune cards representing "blind luck" and the way it's different from dice representing same is that giving WOTC more money doesn't let you change what's written on your dice. Essentially this is a mechanic to let you load your dice by spending more money if prebuilt individual decks are allowed. If you simply buy a stack for the table, don't edit it, and everyone draws from it, it's less offensive. (And in fact I hope they end up selling a non-CCG "full deck" for precisely this use.)

Shatteredtower
2011-01-17, 12:28 AM
Players don't need another freebie, especially if encounter balance stands still. It doesn't teach them new options for play either, despite the advertising claim. Seriously, you're just paying cash for a random extra encounter power. Want the best ones for the character? Just keep forking out cash.

The appropriate protest at sanctioned tables that require these is, "You can only require I buy them, not play them." A little egg on the face now and then is good for a company's soul.

If I was interested in random draw format, I'd have played MtG. That game is interesting, but I see it as far too much hassle for too little return.

Hal
2011-01-17, 12:39 AM
Ah, so it's not so much that you will have to play the card, as much as you'll need to buy a deck. I mean, it's only a smaller turd on the waffles, but it's still a smaller turd.


I thought of this. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8501-Critical-Miss-A-Parable) It feels relevant.

In any case, I just wonder what the future really does hold for D&D at this point. If you look at everything WOTC has done in the last year, there's just no coherent philosophy behind the moves they've been making. Are they constantly switching personnel in the design department? Is management getting obsessive about making changes to increase revenue? Did someone go off their meds?

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-17, 01:26 AM
I thought of this. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8501-Critical-Miss-A-Parable) It feels relevant.
Heh, I assure you, though, I'm not an escapist reader or a Residing Evil, so the saying is coincidental.

I'm guessing- and I do not pretend to understand WotC- that the reason behind "mandatory" deck purchases at official events is to make sure that everyone starts out at the same "level," card-game wise, and doesn't load the deck with all the best rare cards. Well, I mean, after the "Boy howdy we love money" factor, but that should go without saying.

At least it doesn't require a motorcycle.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-17, 05:03 AM
how many cards are drawn per encounter.
I can answer that. Every player can play a card every turn. You can also hold a card for awhile and not play any, but since all cards have a positive effect, it's not a bad idea to just play as many of them as possible.

So that means that 15 cards per encounter is a reasonable estimate, assuming five players and 4 - 5 rounds of combat.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-17, 07:06 AM
... Yeah, that's just sad.

Re'ozul
2011-01-17, 07:31 AM
Well, MtG and D&D are probably among their most profitable products.
Its only natural that they would slowly try to combine them.

Just watch for introducing campaign books (for multiple games in succession that follow a storyline, complete with outcome trees) and slight randomization to be introduced to MtG (unless they already have).

Killer Angel
2011-01-17, 08:04 AM
...
Where is a facepalm, when you need one? :smallsigh:

true_shinken
2011-01-17, 08:35 AM
I can answer that. Every player can play a card every turn. You can also hold a card for awhile and not play any, but since all cards have a positive effect, it's not a bad idea to just play as many of them as possible.

So that means that 15 cards per encounter is a reasonable estimate, assuming five players and 4 - 5 rounds of combat.

I though every player had his deck. If it's a deck for everyone, it's a lesser evil, at least.

Sipex
2011-01-17, 09:30 AM
This isn't stupid in some ways, I mean, from a business standpoint cards are what have made WoTC so successful so it's only natural that they'd turn to them when things got tough.

What makes this stupid is they're applying the cards to a game system which is traditionally played on pick and choose what you like basis. Add to that the average D&D fan is wary of spending even more money on the hobby what with the expensive books and other varying supplies (tilesets, minis, etc).

If wizards truly wants more money they're going to have to find a different tactic that doesn't include 'bleed out every penny from our existing audience'.

true_shinken
2011-01-17, 09:36 AM
This isn't stupid in some ways, I mean, from a business standpoint cards are what have made WoTC so successful so it's only natural that they'd turn to them when things got tough.
Fun fact: the comic implosion of the 90s is what made WotC so succesful. You had a lot of retailers ready to buy stuff, comics were not selling and then came Magic. It was a matter of luck, not something inherent about cards.
I think this is a lot more about Hasbro meddling than WotC screwing up, though.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-17, 10:08 AM
I think this is a lot more about Hasbro meddling than WotC screwing up, though.

Fun fact: several of the game designers have stated that they don't use the new rarity rules in their own home campaigns - so that also feels like executive meddling.

true_shinken
2011-01-17, 10:15 AM
Fun fact: several of the game designers have stated that they don't use the new rarity rules in their own home campaigns - so that also feels like executive meddling.
Ya know, a friend of mine said last night that the rarity rules are the only thing he liked about Essentials. That's pretty weird (specially because the new Assassin is oh so sexy).
But all this recent changes... yeah, they smell of Hasbro screwing up. Hard.

Sipex
2011-01-17, 10:16 AM
I'm just glad I can buy everything pre-essentials and be able to run campaigns for years to come with just those options.

true_shinken
2011-01-17, 10:27 AM
I'm just glad I can buy everything pre-essentials and be able to run campaigns for years to come with just those options.
I'm sad mostly because I'm afraid all my kids will know about Dungeons & Dragons is that when they hear those words, daddy's friends will be visisting for a night around a table.
Presenting them 20 year old books (if my books survive that long) probably won't make them interested.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-17, 10:31 AM
Ya know, a friend of mine said last night that the rarity rules are the only thing he liked about Essentials.

Fun fact: there is one heroic-tier rare. Precisely one. It's a glove that's only useful for melee characters.

frasmage
2011-01-17, 01:25 PM
To be totally honest, I could see this being used in my campaign, but NOT in the way they are "supposed" to be used (which I am pretty sure I would never, ever, allow). I would hate the every player is now tossing these around randomly.

As a DM, I would consider using them a decent perversity-style reward from the DM. ie. Did something really impressive/unexpected/heroic in game? Roleplayed the rest of us to tears/laughter? Well, you sir get to draw from the deck. Hold on to it now.

Then let them trade it back in when they need it, a la get-out-of-jail-free-card.

I do about the same thing with action points in my current game. You don't get them for leveling up, you get them for impressing me. Keeps the players on their toes. But the point is they would have to be rare, special, only occasional bonuses, certainly not every round!

Alternatively, you could give each player one draw as some kind of alternative treasure, a blessing from some god maybe.

CodeRed
2011-01-17, 05:33 PM
It's money-grubbing bull. To quote their advert: "It's important to point out that Fortune Cards are not a requirement for D&D play; they are an enhancement that simulates blind luck, the winds of fate, or divine influence." Isn't that what dice are for or GM adjudication? This kind of crap is turning Dungeons and Dragons away from being as much an experience as a game solidly into boardgame-esque territory.

I don't get it. 3.5 had a lot of hang-ups but was fixable and manageable, look at how Pathfinder's taken off. So they bring out 4.0 which some people like but turns off most of the traditional crowd such as myself. So what the hell is D&D Essentials? Edition 4.5? I don't know as I never really bothered with 4.0 after about the first six months. Everything being down to D&D by Wizards whether or not its on order from Hasbro just really seems schizophrenic lately.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-17, 05:52 PM
I can answer that. Every player can play a card every turn. You can also hold a card for awhile and not play any, but since all cards have a positive effect, it's not a bad idea to just play as many of them as possible.

So that means that 15 cards per encounter is a reasonable estimate, assuming five players and 4 - 5 rounds of combat.

Eeeh... I don't know about that reasoning. Every player can use an encounter power every turn, you can hold an encounter power and not play any, but since all encounter powers have a positive effect (barring your allies standing directly in the way of area of effects), it's not a bad idea to just play as many of them as possible, yet you don't get 15 encounter powers per encounter at the start of the game.

Dusk Eclipse
2011-01-17, 05:55 PM
Well, MtG and D&D are probably among their most profitable products.
Its only natural that they would slowly try to combine them.

Just watch for introducing campaign books (for multiple games in succession that follow a storyline, complete with outcome trees) and slight randomization to be introduced to MtG (unless they already have).

Actually I feel that is a pretty stupid move; if they get so much money from both of them, why merging them? If you combine them both, you will alienate people who like one of the games but not the other.

I play both D&D and M:TG, but I play them for entirely different reasons.
I don't want to draw cards or rely on blind luck (as the article itself calls it) when I am playing D&D; the idea that divine favour or sheer coincidence will help me through the adventures is something that I wouldn't like; my characters try to rely on their own skill and progress to overcome challenges (that is also why I despise fumbles or critical successes on skill checks).

And when I play M:TG I want to play a game, where I know that despite all the randomness that goes into it, I can do something with what fate/luck/whatever gives me.

I don't know if I am making sense, but this just seems stupid.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-17, 06:08 PM
Eeeh... I don't know about that reasoning. Every player can use an encounter power every turn, you can hold an encounter power and not play any,
The difference is that if you use an encounter power, it's gone; whereas if you use a card, you get a new one the next turn.

Besides, yes, a five-man party will use approx 12 encounter powers per encounter at level 7, or approx 16 from level 11. If you're not, then you've picked the wrong powers and should retrain.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-17, 06:16 PM
The difference is that if you use an encounter power, it's gone; whereas if you use a card, you get a new one the next turn.
The article says that you just draw them at the start of the encounter, and doesn't say anything about drawing a new one on the next turn... Did I miss additional information?


Besides, yes, a five-man party will use approx 12 encounter powers per encounter at level 7, or approx 16 from level 11. If you're not, then you've picked the wrong powers and should retrain.
Sorry, my bad, I meant to say you don't get that many encounter powers at level 1.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-17, 06:27 PM
The article says that you just draw them at the start of the encounter, and doesn't say anything about drawing a new one on the next turn... Did I miss additional information?
I'm afraid so.

The rules are: at the beginning of your turn, if you have no card, draw one; if you do have a card, you may discard it and draw a new one. Then, at any time during the round, you can play that card. Lather, rinse, repeat.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-17, 06:34 PM
You see, with those rules in place, that'd signal to me that you just draw one card (or a small number of cards) at the start of the encounter. Then again, that's just me.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-17, 06:48 PM
Eh, I would much rather have the opposite. Magic: The Gathering based campaign setting then a CCG* in my PnPRPG**.
Planeswalkers would be neat from what I know of the fluff, there is a lot that could be pulled from that to make pretty cool setting that isn't so much about Good verses Evil, but about Balance, more or less.
*Collectable Card Game
**Pen and Paper Role Playing Game.

Urpriest
2011-01-17, 07:14 PM
Regardless, I can't see this actually making the game Magic-y. One major difference between Magic and RPGs is the culture involved. In Magic, there's a stigma against using proxies (i.e. just printing cards off the net/writing down abilities on blank cards). In D&D, many groups will share books (or even download them!), and it's generally expected that as long as you can show that something is a rule you don't need to have personally bought the book. So with this culture, I expect these decks to be shared and perhaps copied. Nobody's going to be out to "catch em all".

EagleWiz
2011-01-17, 07:34 PM
Really wizards? Really? Now, I like Magic as much as the next geek but this is just stupid. Have they no shame?

Shatteredtower
2011-01-17, 08:44 PM
Frasmage, thanks for the recommendations.

Shadow_Elf
2011-01-17, 08:49 PM
I am playing a sorcerer who uses a deck of playing cards as an implement and takes as much randomness-inducing stuff as he can get, so these would be thematically appropriate for him. The issue of course being that these would just make him better than his party-mates, and that it would cost me money, which I am not willing to spend. If they had just published a handful of these cards in the Dungeon Magazine Article about the Deck of Many Things and let you pull one 1/encounter with that Artifact, I think it would be a good mechanic. As a purchase-required add-on that has nothing to do with game flavour? No thank you, WotC.

When will they realize that all we wanted was a PH4 with the Shadow source, and an Arcane, Psionic, Primal and Divine Power 2? Essentials classes are actually quite nice, an innovative deviation from the norm, but unless they merchandise it concurrently with Vanilla 4e and make a bigger effort to integrate the two, then I see it as being a downhill trajectory.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-18, 05:36 AM
So...

The set contains 80 cards; the fact that it has a subtitle implies that there may be other sets in the future. The commons and uncommons don't have artwork, just a standard symbol; the rares do have unique art. The cards are the same size as MtG cards, and come in packs of eight (5 commons, 2 uncommon, 1 rare). There are also rules for deckbuilding.

Sample cards let you get a +1 to an attack per bloodied ally nearby, or exclude a square from an area effect you use.

Strawberries
2011-01-18, 06:36 AM
Okay, I'm not qualified to talk about 4th edition, as I know nothing about it.
I don't like the idea of cards, but since I'm not playing 4th edition anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about it. However I'd like to address this.


I'm sad mostly because I'm afraid all my kids will know about Dungeons & Dragons is that when they hear those words, daddy's friends will be visisting for a night around a table.
Presenting them 20 year old books (if my books survive that long) probably won't make them interested.

Okay. Fist, books survive for centuries. 20 years is nothing to a book. Just be sure you keep them reasonably well (as in don't tear the pages out, don't burn them and don't pour water/coffee/soda on them) and you'll be fine.

Second, of course it would make them interested. It's their daddy/mommy/both playing a game of make-believe with them, what's not to like? The system doesn't matter to kids, the fact that they're playing with their parents does.

Okay, I derailed the thread enough. I'm out, now.

true_shinken
2011-01-18, 08:52 PM
Okay. Fist, books survive for centuries. 20 years is nothing to a book. Just be sure you keep them reasonably well (as in don't tear the pages out, don't burn them and don't pour water/coffee/soda on them) and you'll be fine.
That's very hard to do with RPG books. My D&D books get heavy use, specially the Core three. I'm actually looking for a replacement PHB, because mine is simply falling apart. Books last centuries when they are stored on shelves and you never use them. My RPG books are opened, flipped through, marked and all at least once a week.



Second, of course it would make them interested. It's their daddy/mommy/both playing a game of make-believe with them, what's not to like? The system doesn't matter to kids, the fact that they're playing with their parents does.

I respectuflly disagree. My dad tried to get me to like futebol de botão (I really don't know how it's called in english, sorry) for like forever, but it never worked. The pieces (botões) were ininteresting, the board was bland, I didn't want any of that. I hardly think a book falling apart with outdated illustrations and outdated language will appeal to a kid.

Urpriest
2011-01-18, 09:15 PM
I respectuflly disagree. My dad tried to get me to like futebol de botão (I really don't know how it's called in english, sorry) for like forever, but it never worked. The pieces (botões) were ininteresting, the board was bland, I didn't want any of that. I hardly think a book falling apart with outdated illustrations and outdated language will appeal to a kid.

Oddly enough, I'm not sure. I've met small children who know nothing about D&D but love to look at the pictures in the Monster Manual. They would probably get bored to tears by an actual explanation of the game though.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-18, 09:24 PM
I respectuflly disagree. My dad tried to get me to like futebol de botão (I really don't know how it's called in english, sorry) for like forever, but it never worked. The pieces (botões) were ininteresting, the board was bland, I didn't want any of that. I hardly think a book falling apart with outdated illustrations and outdated language will appeal to a kid.
Looks like it's called Button Soccer in American English, but I've honestly not heard of either until now.

That said, just as an anecdote, one of the players in my group has a youngster who enjoys playing Dungeons and Dragons (read: swinging the miniatures around everywhere going "bwoo bwoo raaaar bwooo shoooo fwhoosh!" before the all of the "adults" arrive and settle down), so who knows what the next generation will see in it?

Strawberries
2011-01-19, 01:50 AM
That's very hard to do with RPG books. My D&D books get heavy use, specially the Core three. I'm actually looking for a replacement PHB, because mine is simply falling apart. Books last centuries when they are stored on shelves and you never use them. My RPG books are opened, flipped through, marked and all at least once a week.

I had the same problem with latin and greek dictionaries from high school (they were my parents', so already heavily used.)
A suggestion? Look into having them re-binded (I'm not sure how much it costs where you are, but it may be cheaper than buying new books). The binding is the weakest part of the book, as it tends to break when folded too much. The pages themselves, however (where the important stuffs are :smallwink:) are pratically granted to last, barring extraordinary circumstances.


I respectuflly disagree. My dad tried to get me to like futebol de botão (I really don't know how it's called in english, sorry) for like forever, but it never worked. The pieces (botões) were ininteresting, the board was bland, I didn't want any of that. I hardly think a book falling apart with outdated illustrations and outdated language will appeal to a kid.

I didn't convey my meaning well. The important part wasn't the game itself (rules and the like), but the storytelling and "make believe" part. I think that's so ingrained in being a child that I don't see it changing any time soon.

pasko77
2011-01-19, 04:44 AM
So with this culture, I expect these decks to be shared and perhaps copied. Nobody's going to be out to "catch em all".

Unjustified and cutely optimistic :smallwink:

true_shinken
2011-01-19, 07:03 AM
I didn't convey my meaning well. The important part wasn't the game itself (rules and the like), but the storytelling and "make believe" part. I think that's so ingrained in being a child that I don't see it changing any time soon.
Oh, absolutely. I'm sure I'll get my kids to play RPG. I'm just not sure I'll get them to play D&D.

bokodasu
2011-01-19, 07:47 AM
Oh, absolutely. I'm sure I'll get my kids to play RPG. I'm just not sure I'll get them to play D&D.

You old-media dead-tree people, I swear. Like your kids are even going to know what a "book" is.

I kid, I kid. Well, mostly. My daughter plays D&D, and she's never seen any of the books; it's SRD and PDF all the way.

Back to the original topic, I wonder if D&D is something that companies can only hold for a certain amount of time before ruining. It's not like it was going gangbusters when Wizards bought it. (If it had been, they couldn't have. But we called it T$R for a reason, you know.)

Eventually it will either A) become nonprofitable enough that they'll sell it off to someone else (sucking the last bit of juicy profit from its dessicated husk) or B) so popular in its new form that we'll all start playing Castles & Crusades or Pathfinder instead. (Or whatever new thing takes over 4e, I don't know.)

But yeah, the card thing is stupid. Or at least not D&D. Why even have a DM? Just make it a computer game and be done with it.

On the other hand, if I *were* the type of person who wanted a random deck of powers to draw from, I'd make my own. It's not like I don't have a printer and a pair of scissors. I'm not sure what service they're providing here, except maybe "official tournament play" which, yeah, whatever. What do you get out of that that you don't get in your friend's basement?

Kurald Galain
2011-01-19, 08:13 AM
On the other hand, if I *were* the type of person who wanted a random deck of powers to draw from, I'd make my own. It's not like I don't have a printer and a pair of scissors. I'm not sure what service they're providing here, except maybe "official tournament play" which, yeah, whatever. What do you get out of that that you don't get in your friend's basement?

That's actually very easy. Make a nice little table and at the start of every turn, have the players roll 1d20 (or 1d100 or whatever) and they can choose to activate that effect; all of them last for one roudn only.

1.Lucky break! You get +2 on your first attack roll.
2.The gods smile! You get +2 to all defenses.
3.Your sword catches fire! Your attacks deal +1d6 fire damage.
4.Bird droppings overhead! An enemy of your choice is dazed.
5.Banana peel! An enemy of your choice falls prone.
6.You forgot you had that potion in your pocket! Regain 10 hit points.

And so on.

pasko77
2011-01-19, 09:11 AM
The huge problem I see here is simple:

this stuff is just a TABLE of RANDOM EVENTS.

The fact that they're trying to sell cards of it is terrible.

Loren
2011-01-19, 09:20 AM
As with everyone else, I think the cards are a poorly conceived idea. Not only are they an unnecessary expense for the players, they also are a form of power creap. If things like cards become ingained in the D&D line of products Wizards sells in the future they will alienate many people in the base and generally create a rift between their matterials.

RGPs are a difficult thing to market. The most profitable part of the line is the front end, the core books. The supplimentary matterials are not necessary to play, so people buy less of them. The availiblity of the crunch from these books on the CB made them even less appealing to purchasers. Adventures are challenging to sell because groups only need one copy and it takes them awhile to play through (not to mention most groups don't play published adventures). This has been compounded by the fact that Wizards has been giving adventures away via DDI.

My prediction for the future is that Wizards will launch a new version of D&D. At this point I don't think that the market is right for 5E. 4.4 didn't do so well because it was going over covered ground in a very weak way, designed for beginners. 4E, however, was already very beginner friendly, so the market for beginner matterial was small. Their is a market for more advanced matterials. A 4E AD&D if you will (4.7?). This approach would allow Wizards to stay in the highly profitable end of the product spectrum, build upon their previous work, and not infuriate the base (too much).
I also for see more kits. I think the Monster Vault is what the monster manuels should have been since the start. I think that campaign settings and large adventures/campaigns should be sold in boxed kits with the game materials needed to play.

Ultimately, Wizards has two roles. Firstly, they develop and sell new game systems. Secondly, they provide support products for these systems. Lately, they have not been prodiving great support for their current system. They need to refocus on what players need/want to support their play, as it is done right now. New innovations, like the cards, are not what people want. No doubt, at some point Wizards will introduce a new version of the game, as if it is done properly it is a profitable move. It may not be this year, but it will happen and Wizard would be foolish not to be considering how and when it will be done.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-19, 12:06 PM
The huge problem I see here is simple:

this stuff is just a TABLE of RANDOM EVENTS.

The fact that they're trying to sell cards of it is terrible.
Well, it is how Wizards started, so it is , as they say, their 'base competence'. They know how to make a popular Collectable Card Game, or at least they have done so. Admittedly this is not the same thing, but it is something they do.
Dungeons and Dragons and other RPG are difficult from a sale perspective. Once you have the books you want, you really don't need more. So even with people who play this kind of thing, it's easy to reach market saturation. So once everyone has all the books they are willing to buy, and spewing out bad books can be a bad thing in itself, even if it makes money in the short term, the only way to keep making money off of this is to either a) change editions, which is expensive and alienates players or b) find alternative revenue sources.

The brouhaha over fourth edition, justified or not, and the recent release of Fourth edition Essentials means the market is very unlikely to take kindly to 5th edition any time soon.

So they are trying something else, some other way of making the monies, something they are already have the skills to do and do well.

The answer they came up with?

A collectable card game.

Whether or not I agree with it being a good idea, I can see their logic.

And that scares me.

Loren
2011-01-19, 03:21 PM
As I think about it, it comes to me that combining these cards with a minis game, like the that previously existed might make for an interesting directin for the game. It would be fast and easy to play, and would have a large potential for marketing. Maybe sell some advetures/maps to go along side. Great!

BlckDv
2011-01-19, 03:40 PM
Well, one nice thing about these is a simple rule of the market;

If we ignore them, they will go away.

If these cards are not popular and do not gain a traction among D&D players, WoTC (aka Hasbro) will stop making/pushing them.

This is not the first time a really bad product line has been rolled out for D&D. It isn't even the first time a bad Card product has been rolled out, I recall both the disaster of Spellfire and the earlier line of spell and equipment cards.

The game survived.

If you really want to take an action beyond simply not buying these cards; let your FLGS know that you and your players do not want to buy these cards. If enough folks let them know, they can just not order many and save themselves lost revenue and send a message that this is not a wanted product even faster.

true_shinken
2011-01-19, 03:50 PM
But wasn't Spellfire a cardgame completely unrelated to AD&D?

tbarrie
2011-01-19, 04:17 PM
Well, it is how Wizards started, so it is , as they say, their 'base competence'.

They started making generic RPG supplements that could (in theory) be used with any system. Remember The Primal Order?

Sipex
2011-01-19, 04:19 PM
I miss the blank equipment cards personally.

I mean, index cards do the trick as well but the cards looked so professional.

BlckDv
2011-01-19, 04:26 PM
But wasn't Spellfire a cardgame completely unrelated to AD&D?

<sarcasm>I could say the same about fortune cards.</sarcasm>

More seriously; while Spellfire was not a D&D supplement per se; it was a TSR product that was marketed to existing D&D players and relied heavily on D&D Intellectual Property for it's theoretic appeal. They grossed misjudged the market for the product they supplied. (Not going to go into all the reasons why it failed) The same may be true of Fortune Cards. We shall see if they sell or sit.

bokodasu
2011-01-19, 04:26 PM
If they want to make a CCG, they should make a CCG. It's not like there haven't been related-but-not-compatible products put out for D&D before. (Novels? Dragon Dice? Um... Ok, drawing a blank now but I'm thinking of something else along the lines of Dragon Dice - wasn't there something else with tokens?) Sure, "D&D the CCRPG!" is a bit unwieldy, but we can hand that problem off to marketing.

Trying to combine a CCG (or, as someone pointed out, a TABLE, which is exactly what I use instead of cards for the new Gamma World) with D&D is just silly.

Benly
2011-01-19, 04:42 PM
The essential difference between this and a table, if I understand their recommended use correctly, is that each player has his own deck and can therefore pay WOTC money for the privilege of rolling on a more favorable table by modifying his deck with cards more useful to his character.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-19, 06:11 PM
They started making generic RPG supplements that could (in theory) be used with any system. Remember The Primal Order?
No actually, I don't.:smallredface: The first actual rules PnPRPG I played was fourth edition, besides an abortive attempt at a forum based PbP of Skies of Glass.

Sine
2011-01-19, 07:29 PM
All this breast beating over FCs is just sad. Like Reverent-One said in the 2nd post, if ya don't like 'em, don't buy 'em. I won't be buying them. And like BlckDv said, if that's not enough, tell your FLGS that you won't buy them. Or go to the WotC forums, where your complaints might actually be heard by The Man.

But really, too many people are wrapped up in the badwrongfun mindset. I like D&D and I like M:tG, and if 4e didn't have too many options and add-ons already (minor class features, feats, backgrounds, themes), I might use FCs.

In fact, I think it'd be cool if a randomized power scheme were implemented for 5e. Of course powers would have to be designed to be randomized, but it could be a lot o' fun and could seriously cut down on analysis paralysis. (And it would make the usual explanation for martial encounter and daily powers believable.)

Kurald Galain
2011-01-19, 08:12 PM
if ya don't like 'em, don't buy 'em.

Sure, but it is a valid complaint about WOTC if they are cancelling products you were looking forward to (e.g. MME) and instead putting their time and effort into products you dislike (e.g. these cards).

Benly
2011-01-19, 08:41 PM
In fact, I think it'd be cool if a randomized power scheme were implemented for 5e. Of course powers would have to be designed to be randomized, but it could be a lot o' fun and could seriously cut down on analysis paralysis. (And it would make the usual explanation for martial encounter and daily powers believable.)

What would be even cooler would be if those powers were also printed on cards which were bought randomized. You could buy prebuilt fighter, wizard, and so on decks, and then get booster packs in hopes of being able to get new abilities as you level. You could have cards for martial, divine, arcane, primal, and psionic appropriately color-coded to red, white, blue, green, and some other color (purple?), and mix them in different proportions with appropriate power-source cards to represent multiclassing.

That would be great and I wonder why nobody has thought of it.

J.Gellert
2011-01-19, 08:52 PM
It sounds like a bad, bad idea, and I'm a little sad to see it has come to this.

But let's be realistic. The future of D&D is not this. D&D is just a brand name. If you mean the original game, well that one died many many years ago. If you mean the "idea" of the game, don't worry. There will always be a company to continue the good old-fashioned dungeon crawls. Maybe it won't be called D&D, and maybe it won't even be official, but honestly?

It's a fantasy game. So go ahead and choose your own playing style. I know I'll just play 2nd edition AD&D if all else fails (my oldest link to gaming) and I'm pretty sure the D&D police won't show up to punish me for either ignoring their latest products, or calling the game I play "D&D".

So, yes, the future of D&D is different. Who cares? D&D hasn't even been the D&D I knew in a very long time.

Sine
2011-01-19, 10:29 PM
Sure, but it is a valid complaint about WOTC if they are cancelling products you were looking forward to (e.g. MME) and instead putting their time and effort into products you dislike (e.g. these cards).
Fair enough. What were you looking forward to? (Or, what's MME?)


What would be even cooler would be if those powers were also printed on cards which were bought randomized. You could buy prebuilt fighter, wizard, and so on decks, and then get booster packs in hopes of being able to get new abilities as you level. You could have cards for martial, divine, arcane, primal, and psionic appropriately color-coded to red, white, blue, green, and some other color (purple?), and mix them in different proportions with appropriate power-source cards to represent multiclassing.
I don't buy randomized merchandise anymore. So I'd just proxy my D&D decks like I do my M:tG decks. But hey, if that's what you like why don't you write WotC a letter?


So, yes, the future of D&D is different. Who cares? D&D hasn't even been the D&D I knew in a very long time.
QFT.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-19, 11:50 PM
Who cares, Firkraag? That ought to be evident: those with an interest in the game's evolution, professional and amateur enthusiast alike.

Who cares for earlier editions? The satisfied customers, the victims of Helsinki Syndrom, the sentimental, the fearful, the budget conscious... -- pick a few and you still wouldn't cover all possible options.

akragster
2011-01-20, 12:41 AM
I thought the topic said "Fortune Cookies" and wanted to know how they were implemented in D&D.

I was disappointed.


That said, halfway through the thread I started thinking about how to properly mix D&D and M:tG. Of course, some of the obvious answers are a M:tG based campaigns or a pure CCG game based in the D&D world.

However, I had an idea that you could take all the spells and feats, place them on cards, and have players draw (probably until they had a hand of 5, or 1 per turn) to see what they can possibly do that round.

Here's the catch: you can do everything normally just like standard D&D, but working with your current hand of cards would give bonuses to what you're attempting (i.e. having the cleave card means you ignore the -2 to AC [I've only played Pathfinder before, so I have no idea about how things are in 4e]).



I feel the game would appeal to hardcore veterans and possibly newbies. Obviously, the biggest merchandise for the game would be blank cards (assuming it was just an add-on to a current version; also assuming people wouldn't just use Index cards) and pre-made cards.


Any thoughts on this? I'm not exactly used to making add-ons to games, so pointing out obvious flaws would be helpful.

Benly
2011-01-20, 01:15 AM
I don't buy randomized merchandise anymore. So I'd just proxy my D&D decks like I do my M:tG decks. But hey, if that's what you like why don't you write WotC a letter?


Right, sorry, internet, sarcasm is undetectable without sarcasm tags. Move along, citizen.

The Tygre
2011-01-20, 01:30 AM
... So somehow, WotC has figured out a way to incorporate CCG, their prime commodity, into D&D? Y'know, I joked about this happening back when 4th edition came out, we all laughed and said this would happen.

And now it's happening.

Oh dear God. Roger, take it away. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMfy6o7PDE&feature=feedf)

...Now put me down for a box and make it snappy.

Yahzi
2011-01-20, 05:37 AM
YOn the other hand, if I *were* the type of person who wanted a random deck of powers to draw from, I'd make my own.
If you go to ArtsCow, you can print your own decks of cards. With whatever images/text you want.

'Course it costs more than paper and scissors... but I bet it's less than anything TSR can charge. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2011-01-20, 05:45 AM
As far as I know, D&D is already dead over here...

2008, the last publisher translating 4E gave up the license. Since then, there have been no new German D&D products. I know one single group who still plays D&D (vaguely, from the Warhammer shop), about 90% of all the other nerdy people I know haven't ever heard of D&D, or think it's a tabletop mini game, a bit like Warhammer, but on a smaller scale.

And since most people I know don't really speak enough English to even read a simple book, currently it seems the game will die out in this country.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-20, 06:57 AM
I thought Switzerland was a "The Dark Eye"-Land anyway. With White Wolf-games being second-place.

Eldan
2011-01-20, 07:02 AM
No idea. I don't know any Dark Eye players here, I've only heard about the game from Germans over forums.

Basically, I don't know any other role players anyway. I know one guy who plays Dark Heresy, the mentioned group who plays 3.5 and the few friends I played with. That's all.

_Zoot_
2011-01-20, 08:40 AM
All I have to say on this topic: This is the second time I have used this approach, I hope I don't have to do it again. O.o

http://i340.photobucket.com/albums/o329/_Zoot_/image.png

Heresy.

LansXero
2011-01-20, 10:08 AM
As far as I know, D&D is already dead over here...


Around here (Peru, but it probably applies to non-brazil south america) it has died and it has not.

Oficially, there is NO D&D material in the whole country, and very little in Chile / Argentina, and Ive searched a lot trying to find material for my group. Even 'basic' things like dice are hard to find; there are almost no stores to play in and only one who carries any sort of D&D material (outdated assorted AD&D / 3.5 material, at absurd prices and a few dozens of Dragon Magazine copies spanning several years). So in that sense, you could say D&D no longer exists around here. The skirmish game had a mildly large fanbase but the rules changes and lack of organized play or official support killed it. Finding a single mini is a real adventure, digging through anime / gaming forums or old discount bins at toy stores. So in a way, the game has been dead here for a while.

On the other hand, a couple of months ago there was a roleplaying city-wide event with over a couple hundred people showing up. Most of them are running home campaigns at least once a week, going from 3.5 to PF to 4th. Even with all the difficulties getting even the basic material and translating, there is a something to the game that makes people overcome it and play it. So the game is far from dead in that sense, and no matter what kind of move WotC makes, that wont change.

The thing is, if they wanted to profit from the game, random card from randomized boosters are a pretty poor idea. In my opinion and admittedly limited experience if there is a reason why they arent seeing much profit from RPGs is because they are a huge time investment by one or a few people, and not everyone have that kind of commitment; dumbing down the game only goes so far, and if theyr eally wanted to come up with more products / services to increase their gains they should focus on things that make managing, finding and running groups easier.

One of the things that really set apart, around here at least, Magic from other card / mini games is the rather good official support and competitive play it has. It adds value to your hobby and makes the ivnestment feel worth it. I can only hope they realize that if there is an aspect of MTG they should bring over to D&D its that, and not the being in pieces of cardboard.

Eldan
2011-01-20, 10:10 AM
Oh, yeah. There's no stores either, of course. If you wanted to play D&D, you had to order them on the internet. Now, however, there's not even a translation anymore.

LansXero
2011-01-20, 10:18 AM
there's not even a translation anymore.

They never even finished translating 3.5 in spain-spanish (no ToB / ToM / Incarnum, no fiendish codexes, no a lot of books), only translated a few 4e books in spain-spanish and there is not a single official book in latin-spanish :D

Loren
2011-01-20, 11:46 AM
This turn in the conversation reveals a nother way Wizards could increase their profits, translation and wide market distribution. If whole continents are basically going unserviced there is alot of potential growth. It seems to me that Spanish and French, at least would be languages worth translating into.

true_shinken
2011-01-20, 12:47 PM
This turn in the conversation reveals a nother way Wizards could increase their profits, translation and wide market distribution. If whole continents are basically going unserviced there is alot of potential growth. It seems to me that Spanish and French, at least would be languages worth translating into.

Definitely. In the last two months, the 4e PHB sold 10,000 copies in Brazil.
It's the worst selling D&D game in Brazil ever.

LansXero
2011-01-20, 12:53 PM
This turn in the conversation reveals a nother way Wizards could increase their profits, translation and wide market distribution. If whole continents are basically going unserviced there is alot of potential growth. It seems to me that Spanish and French, at least would be languages worth translating into.

Actually, its a lot of lost growth. Around here at least, going back a few years there were lots of small stores who hosted FNM and roleplaying games, who started shutting down because of inflated prices, high shipping costs and restrictive policies. Late translation, weird distribution polices, lack of official support, encouragement or even publicity made the problem worse and worse and its the way it is now. The one store that lets you play D&D in it survives mostly by selling lego, overpriced boardgames and hosting Magic tournaments. There is a lot of resentment towards WotC in whats left of the once large-ish RP scene, here at least.

Reverent-One
2011-01-20, 01:48 PM
This turn in the conversation reveals a nother way Wizards could increase their profits, translation and wide market distribution. If whole continents are basically going unserviced there is alot of potential growth. It seems to me that Spanish and French, at least would be languages worth translating into.

That depends on the particulars of how international sales work. I admit I don't know much about such things myself, but I'd wager there's a bit more too it than simply make more books and ship them off with an international address rather than a domestic one. Odds are they're well aware of the idea, but it's not ecomonically viable enough for them (especially since they've done it in the past).

Kurald Galain
2011-01-21, 04:45 AM
Okay, so the cards are available now in some places.

Cards come in packs of eight. To use them at the table, you need a deck of ten cards. You construct your own deck as you like, as long as it contains at least three cards from each category (attack, defense, and tactics).

Common cards tend to have some drawback, uncommons don't, and rares are clearly more powerful. So yes, buying enough packs so you can make a deck of ten rares will significantly boost your character power. Several commons resemble or duplicate low-level utility powers.

Also, each pack contains a "rules" card, and there are several different ones. This means that if you buy a single pack, you likely won't have the basic rules that tell you when to play or draw cards.

Reactions are mixed so far, although people seem to strongly dislike the fact that only rares have art on them. After reading a bit more, I see reactions are overwhelmingly negative on the WOTC forum, with several people stating they will never play in a game that uses these.

WOTC has announced a new store-based game option, starting in september, that (according to the ad) is going to be so difficult that you will need these fortune cards.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-01-21, 05:03 AM
Oh no, a completely optional supplement that the manufacturer is trying to showcase and promote in a particular mode of organized play in hopes of boosting sales! GAME = RUINED!

Seriously, guys, chill out. There really is no reason this should even be a blip on your radar. If you don't like it, don't buy it and WOTC will get the message and not make more. Wizards has enough business sense not to slaughter a profitable line by making products that aren't selling, and 4E has turned out to be awesomely profitable.

Now, of course, if the cards DO sell well (even if you personally didn't buy them), then WOTC will probably make more. Which is okay, because they're STILL AN OPTIONAL SUPPLEMENT. That's part of the idea of a supplement: it's a thing you can add to the game or not add to the game. These are not part of the core rules, and they are not a core game product. Shouting that they are the new Mistake That Will Kill 4E (tm) is just going to wear out your vocal cords.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-21, 05:14 AM
If you don't like it, don't buy it

Okay, but what if you're into Convention play, D&D Encounters, or Living Forgotten Realms, and you find yourself at a table where two people don't have cards, two people have a random booster, and one guy has a customized deck with eight rares?

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-01-21, 05:38 AM
Okay, but what if you're into Convention play, D&D Encounters, or Living Forgotten Realms, and you find yourself at a table where two people don't have cards, two people have a random booster, and one guy has a customized deck with eight rares?

I don't see how it's really a problem; the cards would make the party (or at least one character) a bit more effective, but ultimately a lot of the mechanical stuff really comes down to the dice. I don't see how the cards really do much other than slightly nudge the odds in the players' favor a little bit. A bonus to a single attack roll here, a saving throw reroll there, these are effects that are already produced via existing Leader powers. The Fortune cards just make them happen slightly more often.

The rules for using the cards are that you get to draw one card (just one) at the start of an encounter. The card remains in your hand until you play it or discard it. You can only have one of these cards in your hand at a time. So you've basically just got an extra encounter utility power you can call on to slightly tweak an attack or throw someone a momentary defense boost. OMG SO UNBALANCED.

Again, don't like 'em, don't use 'em, but I don't see how they're a problem even if some people use them and others don't.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-21, 05:45 AM
The rules for using the cards are that you get to draw one card (just one) at the start of an encounter.
No, you don't get one card per encounter: you get one per turn. That means that with a well-built deck, you will have e.g. +2 to hit or a free reroll every single turn.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-01-21, 05:52 AM
No, you don't get one card per encounter: you get one per turn. That means that with a well-built deck, you will have e.g. +2 to hit or a free reroll every single turn.

Read the rest of the post. You draw one at the start of the encounter, and you can only have one card in your hand at a time. I forgot to mention that yes, you can draw another card if your hand is empty, but if you don't play or discard the card that's already in your hand, you don't get a new one.

Also, the rules have some specifications on how you can build your deck: sizes are 10, 20, and 30, and you have to have a roughly 33% balance of the three types of cards (attack, defense, tactics). In 10, you need at least 3 of each, in 20 the magic number is 6, and in 30 the category minimum is 9. The ones we've seen spoiled appear to be fairly context-sensitive; you aren't looking at just +2s with no strings attached.

Yes, it's possible to powergame the Fortune Card mechanic. So? It's possible to powergame damn near every other mechanic in the game, no matter what edition you're playing. It's not like having a player in your party with a strong Fortune Card deck hurts you any, though; I can't see how it could be anything but beneficial to the party. DMs might be apprehensive about it, but they have the magical ability to simply disallow a supplement they don't like, and Organized Play adventures are designed with specific supplements (like Fortune Cards) in mind.

The rules for Fortune Card use are available on the product page over at Wizards' site. We aren't exactly dealing with Wish here.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-21, 06:03 AM
I forgot to mention that yes, you can draw another card if your hand is empty, but if you don't play or discard the card that's already in your hand, you don't get a new one.
Well, that is the most important part of the mechanic you forgot to mention. If you play a card each round (and frankly, why wouldn't you?) then you get a bonus and a new card each round. Is that what you mean by "slightly more often"?

So getting back to my question, what if you're into Convention play, D&D Encounters, or Living Forgotten Realms, and you find yourself at a table where two people don't have cards, two people have a random booster, and one guy has a customized deck with eight rares?

Let's see, the latter guy can have four "+2 to hit" cards, three "you don't grant combat advantage" cards, and three "shift three squares as a move" cards, and will use one every turn. That's without using any rares yet.

tbarrie
2011-01-21, 10:54 AM
No actually, I don't.:smallredface: The first actual rules PnPRPG I played was fourth edition,

...remove yourself from my lawn forthwith.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-21, 11:46 AM
...remove yourself from my lawn forthwith.Fine, I am leaving Oh Elder One, your THAC0 and unchallenged percentile rolls were silly anyway.
:smalltongue:

Doug Lampert
2011-01-21, 12:07 PM
Fine, I am leaving Oh Elder One, your THAC0 and unchallenged percentile rolls were silly anyway.
:smalltongue:

THAC0? We'll have none of that new fangled crap!

THAC0 who needs it? It wasn't in Men and Magic or Monsters and Treasure or Wilderness Adventures, so it's not part of the REAL core system!

(For that matter, in the original game, until they added thieves in the Greyhawk supplement there was almost never anything that called for a PC to make a percentile roll except for trying to subdue a dragon. Percentile rolls really came in with Psionics in Eldrich Wizardry IIRC.)

DougL

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-21, 12:10 PM
Ah, so you do draw just one card at the start of the encounter. I never should have disposed of the "Oracle of Wuffing was Right!" penny jar...

That said, I'm still getting mixed signals on things, 'cause my local DM said that there were rules where, yeah, everyone can play with their own decks, but you can also use these other rules and everyone plays cards from the same deck. So, yeah, apparently I'm getting all the benefits of playing with the cards with none of the drawbacks, at least at that local store, 'cause he's just buying a box and we're all using from that.

That said,


WOTC has announced a new store-based game option, starting in september, that (according to the ad) is going to be so difficult that you will need these fortune cards.
I wonder if it's going to be "You need to discard a fortune card in order to disable this instant-death trap" difficult, or "3.5 Terrasque against a level 20 Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, and Fighter" difficult. :smallamused:

kyoryu
2011-01-21, 12:25 PM
I dunno. The more I think about this, the more it seems like something some clueless exec pushed on the company.

With luck it'll fizzle and die, and the exec will go piss in something else.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-01-21, 03:04 PM
Let's see, the latter guy can have four "+2 to hit" cards, three "you don't grant combat advantage" cards, and three "shift three squares as a move" cards, and will use one every turn. That's without using any rares yet.

You keep wheeling out these particular cards that are, indeed, clearly unbalanced, but you haven't shown that they even EXIST. We've only had a few fortune cards spoiled, and the product doesn't hit store shelves until February.

So far, the cards we've had spoiled are:

Get a Grip (Uncommon, Tactic): Play when you or an adjacent ally fails a saving throw. That character rerolls the saving throw.
Grim Determination (Rare, Attack): Play at the start of your turn. You gain a bonus to your first attack roll this turn equal to the number of bloodied allies within 5 squares of you.
Careful Aim (Common, Attack): Play when you use a close or area attack power. Omit one creature from the attack's area of effect.
Self-Sacrifice (Uncommon, Tactic): Play when an ally adjacent to you is hit by a melee or ranged attack. That attack hits you instead.
Balance of Fate (Rare, Defense): Play either when you are bloodied by an attack or when you are hit by an attack while bloodied. You gain a Stroke of Luck, which you can use any time before the end of the encounter (Use a Stroke of Luck to reroll any one attack roll, saving throw, or skill check you make. You can have only one Stroke of Luck at a time, and you cannot use it to affect the event that granted it to you.)


This is not a deck of no-strings-attached +2s to fling out. This is not a deck of no-strings-attached "don't grant combat advantage" tricks to fling out. Every single one of these cards requires exacting circumstances before it can be used, and provides at best a slight nudge in the player's favor in those circumstances. The most powerful mechanic appears to be these Strokes of Luck, and if the Balance of Fate card is any indication it's not all that easy to get a Stroke of Luck, and all it does is let you reroll one thing.

If you actually CAN show these horrifically unbalanced cards you claim will be played (like the +2 to hit, the three-square shift, or the combat advantage cancellation), by all means do so. From everything I've seen, this looks like it's just the same kind of stuff Leaders throw around all the time made slightly more accessible.

Reverent-One
2011-01-21, 03:32 PM
If you actually CAN show these horrifically unbalanced cards you claim will be played (like the +2 to hit, the three-square shift, or the combat advantage cancellation), by all means do so. From everything I've seen, this looks like it's just the same kind of stuff Leaders throw around all the time made slightly more accessible.

You might want to look here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26664413/Fortune_Cards_preview__list,_perhaps). Granted, he neglected to mention the restrictions on those cards, but there are card that do things similar to the ones he mentioned.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-01-21, 03:50 PM
You might want to look here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26664413/Fortune_Cards_preview__list,_perhaps). Granted, he neglected to mention the restrictions on those cards, but there are card that do things similar to the ones he mentioned.

The restrictions make the difference. The +2s are just to at-wills, and at-wills are rarely the crucial encounter-winning move. The combat advantage negates the combat advantage against one attack. Just one. The three-square shift specifically has to get you adjacent to an ally.

These are not particularly broken boosts. The +2 seems moderately exploitable, but ANYTHING can be exploited whether it's a fortune card or not. I think everyone needs to just calm down and wait to see what effect the fortune cards actually HAVE on the game, rather than the effect you fear/hope they will.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-21, 03:56 PM
*snip old gamer rant*
Wow, you're not just a greybeard, you are a whitebeard!
And I mean that with all the respect you deserve for surviving that.:smallsmile:

BobTheDog
2011-01-21, 05:01 PM
That depends on the particulars of how international sales work. I admit I don't know much about such things myself, but I'd wager there's a bit more too it than simply make more books and ship them off with an international address rather than a domestic one. Odds are they're well aware of the idea, but it's not ecomonically viable enough for them (especially since they've done it in the past).

Let me retake this thread, as it personally interests me. :smallbiggrin:

The problem with the method WotC uses/used is that they just don't care about international sales. They sell translation/localization licenses to companies in the target market(s) and those companies are responsible for everything (translating, producing, distributing and paying WotC their due of course). Thing is, these companies do not necessarily know what they're doing or "care about D&D" (in the business sense of investing in the product line, not in the "I'm a fan" sense). National example: the company responsible for Brazilian Portuguese translations is mainly invested in translating comic books. They also own licenses to White Wolf games and GURPS, along with some other systems. And M:tG plus other CCGs, of course.

So, they basically have two strong "businesses" (comics and CCGs) whose customers always want the latest products and the RPGs, whose customers buy few books. Moreover, the local customer base is small (when proportionally compared to the U.S.) since down here RPGs will turn your kids into devil-worshipping blood ritualists. :smallwink:

This means that there is not a lot of incentive for the company to invest heavily in D&D (or GURPS or WoD) since they wouldn't get proportional results. The result is that we only get a few books translated (the FRCS is the next release scheduled and I doubt it'll see the light of day) and the translation quality is appalling.

Now, IF WotC wanted to invest directly in international markets, they would likely look at what is going on (judging by the posts in here, things are bad in a lot of places) and come to the conclusion that there is no market for translated material.

Maybe with the next edition some ambitious exec will think of a global launch campaign for D&D... But I doubt it.

/tldr version: WotC doesn't give a beholder's behind about international customers.

Edit: heh, forgot to address your post. :smallredface:

There isn't much more to it than making books (in all languages desired, paying translators/editors/QA staff for each language) and shipping them internationally (paying all customs/taxes involved). BUT those two steps get pricey when we talk about global sales. :smallsigh:

true_shinken
2011-01-21, 05:26 PM
The restrictions make the difference. The +2s are just to at-wills, and at-wills are rarely the crucial encounter-winning move.
There is this class called 'Ranger' with this at-will called 'Twin Strike'. Maybe you heard about them, it's from the PHB. It's the most damaging at-will in the game and it's actually better than most Ranger encounter powers that need a standard action (because you can use just have an encounter that uses a minor and still use Twin Strike).
There is also this build called the Feycharger. I'll stop here.
+10% accuracy to Feychargers is too good, even more added accuracy to Twin Strike (because you roll twice and stuff) is ridiculous.


The combat advantage negates the combat advantage against one attack. Just one.
That's enough to avoid some encounter powers that require combat advantage.


The three-square shift specifically has to get you adjacent to an ally.
Wow, that's so rare for martial Defenders/Strikers, isn't it?
Oh, wait a minute, it isn't.


These are not particularly broken boosts. The +2 seems moderately exploitable, but ANYTHING can be exploited whether it's a fortune card or not.
Look at your Ranger, now back to me. Now back to your Ranger, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me. But he could be like me if he bought 200 dollars worth of Fortune Cards. Look down, back up, where are you? You're in a convention with a dude playing a build that kills everything before you get your turn. Everything is possible when you ignore game balance and try to make a huge profit. I'm on 3.5.

Reverent-One
2011-01-21, 05:40 PM
That's enough to avoid some encounter powers that require combat advantage.

Sure, if you happen to have that card at that time. Course that either means you get a lucky draw or you choose to hold onto the card for a while.


Look at your Ranger, now back to me. Now back to your Ranger, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me. But he could be like me if he bought 200 dollars worth of Fortune Cards. Look down, back up, where are you? You're in a convention with a dude playing a build that kills everything before you get your turn. Everything is possible when you ignore game balance and try to make a huge profit. I'm on 3.5.

Uh-huh, because giving twin strike a 10% accuracy boost for about 1/3 of the encounter now means that the ranger will now kill everything before some other person gets their turn... Somehow I doubt that will be the case. More like "laugh at the guy who bought 200 dollars worth of Fortune cards for relatively little benefit".

true_shinken
2011-01-21, 05:49 PM
Uh-huh, because giving twin strike a 10% accuracy boost for about 1/3 of the encounter now means that the ranger will now kill everything before some other person gets their turn... Somehow I doubt that will be the case. More like "laugh at the guy who bought 200 dollars worth of Fortune cards for relatively little benefit".
Considering Twin Strike Rangers kind of already do that, I think it will be the case, pretty much.

Reverent-One
2011-01-21, 05:56 PM
Considering Twin Strike Rangers kind of already do that, I think it will be the case, pretty much.

No, they don't. You're wildly exaggerating Twin Strike's abilties. And the fortune card's effect on gameplay. A 10% accuracy boost for 1/3 of the encounter to twin strike has reasonable chance to have absolutely zero effect on any given battle. Assuming 6 rounds of combat, this means the accuracy boost will affect 2 rounds, which is 4 attack rolls with twin strike. Given that the accuracy boost only has a 1 in 10 chance of mattering, you'll need to have 2-3 combats before it does anything. If this fortune card would break twin strike rangers, then they're already broken in any group that plays above level 15 in which the ranger takes Weapon expertise and the rest of the party doesn't, since that gives them a 10% accuracy boost for the entire encounter.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-21, 07:19 PM
Look at your Ranger, now back to me. Now back to your Ranger, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me. But he could be like me if he bought 200 dollars worth of Fortune Cards. Look down, back up, where are you? You're in a convention with a dude playing a build that kills everything before you get your turn. Everything is possible when you ignore game balance and try to make a huge profit. I'm on 3.5.

Well said.

Also, just to point out the obvious, several of the newest classes/builds printed rely exclusively on at-will attacks every single round.

And, well, this is the game where everybody gets worked up about how big a deal a +1 to-hit is, to the point where some people believe a character is worthless unless he starts with a 20 in his primary attribute and an expertise feat at level 1. Now I'll be the first to admit that these people are exaggerating - but the point is that they're ubiquitous, and that seeing these cards is going to provoke a strong reaction in them. Because by 4E standards, getting +2 to one attack per encounter is very much unbalancing.

Reverent-One
2011-01-21, 07:23 PM
Because by 4E standards, getting +2 to one attack per encounter is very much unbalancing.

Nope. It's nice, but unbalancing? Not in the least.

true_shinken
2011-01-21, 07:28 PM
Nope. It's nice, but unbalancing? Not in the least.
Would you care to say why? Both me and Kurald are saying 'X is Y because of Z' but you keep replying 'no it isn't'.
A +2 to hit once per encounter (actually, more like 3/encounter, or whatever) would hardly be an issue in any game but 4e that prides itself on how balanced it is.

Tengu_temp
2011-01-21, 07:31 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd just like to point out that "boy howdy we sure do like money" has been WotC's official policy for, like, totally ages man. They are just much more open about it recently.


Look at your Ranger, now back to me. Now back to your Ranger, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me. But he could be like me if he bought 200 dollars worth of Fortune Cards. Look down, back up, where are you? You're in a convention with a dude playing a build that kills everything before you get your turn. Everything is possible when you ignore game balance and try to make a huge profit. I'm on 3.5.

This wins. Well done.

Reverent-One
2011-01-21, 07:34 PM
Would you care to say why? Both me and Kurald are saying 'X is Y because of Z' but you keep replying 'no it isn't'.
A +2 to hit once per encounter (actually, more like 3/encounter, or whatever) would hardly be an issue in any game but 4e that prides itself on how balanced it is.

You and Kurald aren't saying 'X is Y because of Z', you're saying 'X is Y because I say so', you haven't made any claims with any real meat to them at all. I've at least said more that here:


10% accuracy boost for 1/3 of the encounter to twin strike has reasonable chance to have absolutely zero effect on any given battle. Assuming 6 rounds of combat, this means the accuracy boost will affect 2 rounds, which is 4 attack rolls with twin strike. Given that the accuracy boost only has a 1 in 10 chance of mattering, you'll need to have 2-3 combats before it does anything.

I would like to correct my previous statement though, a +2 to hit once per encounter is not even nice. It's utterly insignificant. A +2 to hit for a third of an encounter, or even a whole encounter, is nice, but even those aren't going to unbalance the game in any real way. If 4e was a game of Rocket tag, that might be different, but when any given foe normally takes multiple hits to take out, a slight boost isn't going to radically change things.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-21, 07:38 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd just like to point out that "boy howdy we sure do like money" has been WotC's official policy for, like, totally ages man.
True enough. But they used to be about making money by giving the public what it wants; judged by the average forum reaction to these cards, this is really not what the public wants. People don't mind being expected to pay for things; people do get insulted if they feel they're expected to pay for something they dislike.

Of course, forums may give a distorted image; we'd have to wait a few months to see how well the cards sell. I think WOTC is deliberately aiming for having conventions or storeplay games include both people with cards and people without, and having the former seem clearly more powerful. WOTC, then, is hoping that this entices the latter group to buy cards, but conversely it may also entice them to demand the former group to stop using them, or to simply stop playing.

It's really not relevant whether the cards are balanced. It is relevant that the cards are deliberately designed to appear unbalanced. Is there such a thing as bad publicity? Wait and see.

true_shinken
2011-01-21, 07:47 PM
I would like to correct my previous statement though, a +2 to hit once per encounter is not even nice. It's utterly insignificant.
Utterly insignificant. I guess that's why Action Surge is such a bad feat. +3 to hit once per encounter and not even every encounter, not even on all attacks on the round!
Oh, wait a second. Action Surge is not a bad feat. It's one of the best feats in the game. So as to avoid accusations of 'because I said so', I'll actually present data. Both the Barbarian handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19648686/Destruction_Manifest:_The_Barbarians_Handbook) ("This is the reason people play humans") and the Assassin's handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/20173353/Soul_of_Shadows:_An_Assassin_Handbook?pg=1) ("You are a human, and as such, this is your amazing feat you will take sooner or lat") claim that Action Surge (a situational +3 per encounter that you can't use every encounter) is very very good.
This card is like Action Surge, except it only applies to at-wills (not a problem, as Kurald mentioned; Twin Strike is awesome and Essentials' Martial characters use nothing but at-wills anyway), is 1 point weaker, doesn't cost a
feat, doesn't require a race and doesn't require one action point. In fact, you could use both.
So... hardly 'insignificant'.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-21, 07:47 PM
If people will really buy fortune cards for 200 dollars just to get a measly benefit in a game, then Wizards of the Coast deserves that money and has done everything right. And it only proves that the current generation of D&D-players have not much in common with us, who wouldn't want such a thing at the gaming table.

That, or there's a charm and compulsion effect lying upon these cheap pieces of paper.

If there's really enough competitive players for 4th edition that they would blow loads of money for that for that to be profitable, then WotC is doing the right thing in marketing such trinkets to them (whoever they are).

If it totally fails (what I expect), then this was a worthless debacle, and people will laugh and point at anybody at Hasbro who came up with the idea. If it sells well, then WotC are genius.

But the ones who decide that this will either be a flop or a top are still the customers.

ericgrau
2011-01-21, 07:49 PM
Wow, they are pretty horrible. And "get a grip"? Put some thought into the names at least. I also noticed that they have uncommons and rares.

I never buy into "you don't have to" arguments, btw, especially on a social game, especially when the issue never was "have to play" but "will play". Nobody cares enough to cross-examine every version of every game they play to find the ideal. Half the time what's there is what gets played, then if it sucks you play something else entirely.

I could tolerate 4e as its own interesting tactical game, but first they cut off 3e support and bar others from making 3e products as well and now this is shrinking the game into board game territory. Except board games are a lot easier to set up, so if I'm going to play one I'll play a real one and save myself the time.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-21, 07:50 PM
Nope. It's nice, but unbalancing? Not in the least.
While this is not following the same line of reasoning as the +2 to hit, keep in mind that Wizards says that their September option (admittedly, merely one out of several, and no, you don't have to play that if you don't want to,) will be so difficult that the cards will be necessary in order to succeed. I mean, when it comes out of the horse's mouth that not having the cards is basically guaranteeing you a fail, what more do you need to say something's not quite balanced?

Then again, I could certainly see Wizards overhyping a new product in hopes to increase sales, and then baiting us to discuss the situation for the next couple of months in order to build more hype around something that isn't actually as difficult as advertised in some sort of semi-viral marketing angle, but, I'm just going off the information with which I've been provided.

Edit:


I could tolerate 4e as its own interesting tactical game, but first they cut off 3e support and bar others from making 3e products as well and now this is shrinking the game into board game territory. Except board games are a lot easier to set up, so if I'm going to play one I'll play a real one and save myself the time.
Except Mouse Trap. That's a pain to set up. :smallannoyed:

true_shinken
2011-01-21, 07:54 PM
If people will really buy fortune cards for 200 dollars just to get a measly benefit in a game, then Wizards of the Coast deserves that money and has done everything right. And it only proves that the current generation of D&D-players have not much in common with us, who wouldn't want such a thing at the gaming table.
I agree with you. The thing is, 4e has kind of a 'competitive' view added to it. There are dungeon delves (is that the name?) in conventions where people go through a dungeon and the group that finishes faster 'wins'. I've heard of people calling it 'D&D tournaments', even. This is my problem - the current generation seems to think of D&D as a competitive game that needs to be won (to be fair, many on my generation did it as well; they're the kind of people we kick from our games)... a lot like Magic.
Now, they can play D&D whichever way they want, I don't care. My problem is that this eventually causes Hasbro to stop investing in D&D at all (because after Essentials, I believe the current generation is not buying as much books as we did - it's not even their fault, what with the character builder and everything) and the game dies. Like I said before, I want my kids to play D&D.

Attilargh
2011-01-21, 08:03 PM
Delves are nothing new. "Gygaxian" dungeons evolved from convention games run by Gygax himself where the objective was to win the game by surviving the fiendish and nonsensical dungeon put forward by the antagonistic Dungeon Master. I don't think the sort of plot-centered gaming we take now for granted took off until AD&D was picking up speed.

ericgrau
2011-01-21, 08:07 PM
Plot is a relative term and while they are very much evil PC death traps, Gygaxian worlds are also incredibly involved right down to the economy. AD&D was always "this is who you are now go do stuff", with an even heavier application of rule 0 than now (partly because it was a less developed system, I'm sure). This is making things less and less fuzzy DM determination and more and more numbers PC determination than before. Just like you have little need for someone to oversee and mediate your game of Monopoly. And each time something hits the DM like that, the world dies a little bit more. Heck, each time something hits the PCs like that, it becomes that much harder to focus on fuzzy rp descriptions while doing math in your head.

kyoryu
2011-01-21, 08:10 PM
Utterly insignificant. I guess that's why Action Surge is such a bad feat. +3 to hit once per encounter and not even every encounter, not even on all attacks on the round!
Oh, wait a second. Action Surge is not a bad feat. It's one of the best feats in the game. So as to avoid accusations of 'because I said so', I'll actually present data. Both the Barbarian handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19648686/Destruction_Manifest:_The_Barbarians_Handbook) ("This is the reason people play humans") and the Assassin's handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/20173353/Soul_of_Shadows:_An_Assassin_Handbook?pg=1) ("You are a human, and as such, this is your amazing feat you will take sooner or lat") claim that Action Surge (a situational +3 per encounter that you can't use every encounter) is very very good.
This card is like Action Surge, except it only applies to at-wills (not a problem, as Kurald mentioned; Twin Strike is awesome and Essentials' Martial characters use nothing but at-wills anyway), is 1 point weaker, doesn't cost a
feat, doesn't require a race and doesn't require one action point. In fact, you could use both.
So... hardly 'insignificant'.

It's not insignificant, but it's not nearly as ZOMG OP as people (who seem to be 4E critics, primarily) seem to make it out.

Action Surge is great because usually, when you burn an AP, you do so to use an Encounter or Daily. Since those tend to be the game-changers, making sure they hit is a *really, really* good thing.

An occasional bonus on At-Wills (your plink powers) is much less of a big thing.


Delves are nothing new. "Gygaxian" dungeons evolved from convention games run by Gygax himself where the objective was to win the game by surviving the fiendish and nonsensical dungeon put forward by the antagonistic Dungeon Master. I don't think the sort of plot-centered gaming we take now for granted took off until AD&D was picking up speed.

I'd say it started with DragonLance (which I believe was 2nd ed) and, to a lesser extent, Drizzt.

true_shinken
2011-01-21, 08:13 PM
An occasional bonus on At-Wills (your plink powers) is much less of a big thing.
Except with Essentials' martial classes, of course. Than it's exactly the same.
Also, notice I was responding to someone who said it was 'utterly insignificant'.

Reverent-One
2011-01-21, 08:14 PM
Utterly insignificant. I guess that's why Action Surge is such a bad feat. +3 to hit once per encounter and not even every encounter, not even on all attacks on the round!
Oh, wait a second. Action Surge is not a bad feat. It's one of the best feats in the game. So as to avoid accusations of 'because I said so', I'll actually present data. Both the Barbarian handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19648686/Destruction_Manifest:_The_Barbarians_Handbook) ("This is the reason people play humans") and the Assassin's handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/20173353/Soul_of_Shadows:_An_Assassin_Handbook?pg=1) ("You are a human, and as such, this is your amazing feat you will take sooner or lat") claim that Action Surge (a situational +3 per encounter that you can't use every encounter) is very very good.
This card is like Action Surge, except it only applies to at-wills (not a problem, as Kurald mentioned; Twin Strike is awesome and Essentials' Martial characters use nothing but at-wills anyway), is 1 point weaker, doesn't cost a
feat, doesn't require a race and doesn't require one action point. In fact, you could use both.
So... hardly 'insignificant'.

So instead of "because I said so" it's "because these 2 dudes on the internet said so". Much better. :smallwink:

In all honesty, yes, it is insignificant. What the odds that taking Action surge will result in winning a battle you'd otherwise lose, landing the last hit on an enemy that would otherwise flee, preventing an enemy from killing an almost dead ally, or even saving that one healing surge you'll need before the day is over? Will it make you be able to virtually solo encounters, or at least make a notably bigger dent in one yourself? If it won't, then how is it significant by itself? It is, however, still better for combat than a number of other feats, so certainly I understand someone who wants to optimize taking it before other feats.


While this is not following the same line of reasoning as the +2 to hit, keep in mind that Wizards says that their September option (admittedly, merely one out of several, and no, you don't have to play that if you don't want to,) will be so difficult that the cards will be necessary in order to succeed. I mean, when it comes out of the horse's mouth that not having the cards is basically guaranteeing you a fail, what more do you need to say something's not quite balanced?

Then again, I could certainly see Wizards overhyping a new product in hopes to increase sales, and then baiting us to discuss the situation for the next couple of months in order to build more hype around something that isn't actually as difficult as advertised in some sort of semi-viral marketing angle, but, I'm just going off the information with which I've been provided.

I'll believe that you need the cards to do X challenge when I see it.

kyoryu
2011-01-21, 08:16 PM
Except with Essentials' martial classes, of course. Than it's exactly the same.
Also, notice I was responding to someone who said it was 'utterly insignificant'.

Good point :)

I'd also say that Action Surge is a lot less useful to an Essentials martial class.

true_shinken
2011-01-21, 08:21 PM
So instead of "because I said so" it's "because these 2 dudes on the internet said so". Much better. :smallwink:
Because two respected members of the 4e community said so? Yeah, I think so. Unless you think only your opinion is correct, but in that case, why have a discussion?


In all honesty, yes, it is insignificant. What the odds that taking Action surge will result in winning a battle you'd otherwise lose, landing the last hit on an enemy that would otherwise flee, preventing an enemy from killing an almost dead ally, or even saving that one healing surge you'll need before the day is over? Will it make you be able to virtually solo encounters, or at least make a notably bigger dent in one yourself? If it won't, then how is it significant by itself?
I'm sorry, your logic is flawed.
By your definition, every option in D&D 4e (well, every option in every RPG ever) is insignificant.
Race in AD&D? It doesn't guarantee anything you mentioned. Dots in Alertness in OWoD? Don't guarantee anything you mentioned. Feats in 4e D&D? Don't guarantee anything you mentioned.
In fact, no option in any RPG I know guarantee anything. Because you use dice and you have a game master.

It is, however, still better for combat than a number of other feats, so certainly I understand someone who wants to optimize taking it before other feats.
Let's just remember that optimizing is the expected way in 4e. The books say so explicitly.

Reverent-One
2011-01-21, 08:36 PM
Because two respected members of the 4e community said so? Yeah, I think so. Unless you think only your opinion is correct, but in that case, why have a discussion?

See the smiley? It meant I was joking.


I'm sorry, your logic is flawed.
By your definition, every option in D&D 4e (well, every option in every RPG ever) is insignificant.
Race in AD&D? It doesn't guarantee anything you mentioned. Dots in Alertness in OWoD? Don't guarantee anything you mentioned. Feats in 4e D&D? Don't guarantee anything you mentioned.
In fact, no option in any RPG I know guarantee anything. Because you use dice and you have a game master.

No, you're simply missing the point. You're right that I'm saying most of those individual choices are insignificant in and of themselves, what generally matters in RPGs is the combination of your character building choices as a whole. Player A, who takes Action Surge, Weapon Expertise, gets a 20 in his primary stat, spends his money on a bigger +X weapon, picks the more useful powers, will be noticeably more able to deal with combat than Player B, who sticks a 16 in his attack stat, spends most of his feats on Skill focus(X), uses a low proficiency weapon, spends his gold on non-combat items, and takes only the powers that sound cool (granted, the 3.5 monk will still be jealous of player B :smalltongue:). Meanwhile, if Player A and Player B are virtually identical, with the difference being player A taking Action Surge while player B takes Skill Focus(Religion)? The difference is incredibly unlikely to matter.


Let's just remember that optimizing is the expected way in 4e. The books say so explicitly.

Hmm, I don't quite remember any books saying that, got a quote?

true_shinken
2011-01-21, 08:50 PM
See the smiley? It meant I was joking.
Sorry, I tend to be stupid at least 1/day or something. Call it a daily power. :smallamused:


No, you're simply missing the point. You're right that I'm saying most of those individual choices are insignificant in and of themselves, what generally matters in RPGs is the combination of your character building choices as a whole. Player A, who takes Action Surge, Weapon Expertise, gets a 20 in his primary stat, spends his money on a bigger +X weapon, picks the more useful powers, will be noticeably more able to deal with combat than Player B, who sticks a 16 in his attack stat, spends most of his feats on Skill focus(X), uses a low proficiency weapon, spends his gold on non-combat items, and takes only the powers that sound cool (granted, the 3.5 monk will still be jealous of player B :smalltongue:). Meanwhile, if Player A and Player B are virtually identical, with the difference being player A taking Action Surge while player B takes Skill Focus(Religion)? The difference is incredibly unlikely to matter.
Ah, I see your point. I would hardly call that 'utterly insignificant', though. I played a human Tempest Fighter with Action Surge and that feat was the thing that made me relevant.


Hmm, I don't quite remember any books saying that, got a quote?
Sorry, I can't get a quote. I don't own any 4e books anymore.

Gamerlord
2011-01-21, 09:03 PM
I guess a company can only hold onto D&D for so long before they start messing around with the game.

Anyway, these Fortune Cards sound extremely stupid, but from the point of view from a Hasbro or WOTC executive who has never played D&D before, I can see the logic behind this. "MTG makes money. D&D profits are starting to fall. We need as good a ROI as possible. So lets take some of the MtG ideas and put them in D&D! What could go wrong!" But to honest, I don't really care, I gave up on WOTC the moment I heard of Essentials.

erikun
2011-01-21, 09:47 PM
I'm not too keen on these Fortune Cards, although that seems to be a popular sentiment. My biggest concern is not how they'll influence 4e (which will likely be minor) but how much they will influence the design of 5e. That's not to say that a RPG/wargame miniture/TCG won't be something interesting to see, just that it's not something I would care to spend money on. Not that I've bothered with anything new from D&D for over a year now.


This talk is making me curious, though. Has there been an attempt at a "trading card role playing game" before? It seems like it could be an interesting idea, at least.

J.Gellert
2011-01-21, 09:50 PM
This talk is making me curious, though. Has there been an attempt at a "trading card role playing game" before? It seems like it could be an interesting idea, at least.

It seems like it would be completely missing the point, though.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-21, 09:51 PM
They will influence 5th edition and become part of it if it becomes a success.

Meaning, the ones to influence the future are the current customers.

erikun
2011-01-21, 09:56 PM
It seems like it would be completely missing the point, though.
That depends on what you are looking for in a RPG, though. It obviously wouldn't be much like D&D, but then again, most RPGs aren't.

true_shinken
2011-01-21, 10:05 PM
That depends on what you are looking for in a RPG, though. It obviously wouldn't be much like D&D, but then again, most RPGs aren't.
If I remember correctly, OWoD had collectable cards for Changeling games. It didn't work out so well.
TSR had card-based games for Dragonlance and Marvel Super Heroes. That also didn't work out so well.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-21, 10:12 PM
This talk is making me curious, though. Has there been an attempt at a "trading card role playing game" before? It seems like it could be an interesting idea, at least.

I've heard Gamma World kinda does that, but I've never played it so that might be a stretch. Likewise, I believe the Warcraft CCG (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/4/) is kinda like that premise, but, ah, I've been trying not to make the implication that they're making D&D more like WoW for reasons that should be obvious to anyone that has read a prior 4e discussion topic.

Yahzi
2011-01-21, 11:40 PM
Look at your Ranger, now back to me. Now back to your Ranger, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me. But he could be like me if he bought 200 dollars worth of Fortune Cards. Look down, back up, where are you? You're in a convention with a dude playing a build that kills everything before you get your turn. Everything is possible when you ignore game balance and try to make a huge profit. I'm on 3.5.
You wins the internets! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

Liekurmomma
2011-01-22, 12:02 AM
I've heard Gamma World kinda does that, but I've never played it so that might be a stretch. Likewise, I believe the Warcraft CCG (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/4/) is kinda like that premise, but, ah, I've been trying not to make the implication that they're making D&D more like WoW for reasons that should be obvious to anyone that has read a prior 4e discussion topic.

Gamma World doesn't kinda do that.

Gamma World IS that.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-01-22, 12:59 AM
Because two respected members of the 4e community said so? Yeah, I think so. Unless you think only your opinion is correct, but in that case, why have a discussion?

You mean because two character optimization guides said so.

Character optimization guides are specifically devoted to squeezing every possible benefit out of the rules as written in order to make a character as powerful as possible in combat.

The thing is, D&D (not even 4E) is not JUST a combat game. A CharOp guide doesn't touch non-combat beyond skill selection. It doesn't touch important elements of the game that aren't meticulously adjudicated with rules. These Fortune Cards ALSO don't do anything outside of combat. Their relevance and effects are directly proportional to how much combat you have in your game. Delves are, obviously, designed to be combat-heavy, so Fortune Cards and CharOp will have a greater effect, but in other games that aren't so combat-heavy, Fortune Cards and CharOp have considerably less influence. 3.5 has the most involved regulation of non-combat situations of any D&D edition. AD&D had a handful of optional systems for dealing with non-combat and otherwise just expected you to use your imagination. 4E cut back from 3.5's vast network of out-of-combat rules, with a simplified skill system among other things. Mechanics pretty much cease to matter once the encounter's over. These Fortune Cards ALSO cease to matter.

Funny thing I've noticed: the same people complaining about these Fortune Cards are the same people who accuse 4E of being just a board game.

Callista
2011-01-22, 01:06 AM
:smallfrown:

Kurald Galain
2011-01-22, 04:59 AM
It's not insignificant, but it's not nearly as ZOMG OP as people (who seem to be 4E critics, primarily) seem to make it out.
The WOTC charop board calls it "zomg" overpowered. Are you really sure those people are 4E critics?

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 10:07 AM
Funny thing I've noticed: the same people complaining about these Fortune Cards are the same people who accuse 4E of being just a board game.
Simply not true. I don't think 4e is just a board game, I think it's a good gaming system, I just like 3.5 better - I prefer a simulationist aproach. Just to give another example, Kurald is fan of 4e (and usually the guy to bring info about 4e to the boards).



Character optimization guides are specifically devoted to squeezing every possible benefit out of the rules as written in order to make a character as powerful as possible in combat.
Simply not true as well. Guides usually have sections about utility and out of combat use. There is less you can do outside of combat because of the nature of D&D, but the guides do touch that. Even Eldariel's Guide to Barbarians has a few words on how detecting traps is awesome. There is a skillmonkey handbook in this very forum - it almost doesn't mention combat.

Callista
2011-01-22, 02:33 PM
4th edition would be good if they had just brought it in as a system of its own. It appeals to the wargaming demographic and the casual gamers. It works, as a system. But I hate that they're trying to force it to replace 3.5, because that's the system I like, and I hate that it's going out of print and it's getting gradually harder to find other gamers who also play it.

And things like this... well, they seem like they're just trying to squeeze money out of us rather than providing a good product and letting it stand on its own. I may be a traditionalist, at least as far as business goes; but I really don't like it when a company that is supposed to be providing a product based on creativity is being run by its marketing department.

Gamerlord
2011-01-22, 02:38 PM
4th edition would be good if they had just brought it in as a system of its own. It appeals to the wargaming demographic and the casual gamers. It works, as a system. But I hate that they're trying to force it to replace 3.5, because that's the system I like, and I hate that it's going out of print and it's getting gradually harder to find other gamers who also play it.
.

What I don't see is why WOTC doesn't just branch out D&D.

Rename 4e DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-HEROES!
Reprint and rename 3.5 DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-ADVENTURE!
Reprint and rename 1e or 2e DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-CLASSIC!

They don't even need to make new products for all of them, people would still buy them.

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 02:45 PM
What I don't see is why WOTC doesn't just branch out D&D.

Rename 4e DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-HEROES!
Reprint and rename 3.5 DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-ADVENTURE!
Reprint and rename 1e or 2e DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-CLASSIC!

They don't even need to make new products for all of them, people would still buy them.

Genius! You, sir, should become president of the world.

Callista
2011-01-22, 02:45 PM
Yes. Yes, we would buy them.

I can't even find 2e books anymore... but I'd love to try playing it. I've heard good things about it (and bad things about some of the clunky mechanics... but then, 3rd edition has grapple rules, so at least that's traditional)!

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 02:59 PM
Yes. Yes, we would buy them.

I can't even find 2e books anymore... but I'd love to try playing it. I've heard good things about it (and bad things about some of the clunky mechanics... but then, 3rd edition has grapple rules, so at least that's traditional)!

4e goes along with it's environment rules. Clunky rules for everyone!

BobTheDog
2011-01-22, 04:01 PM
4e goes along with it's environment rules. Clunky rules for everyone!

Environment rules? :smallconfused:

true_shinken
2011-01-22, 04:02 PM
Environment rules? :smallconfused:
For example, a sandstorm takes away a healing surge. Why people are afraid of it, I don't know.
Of course, it also means sandstorms hurt more the tougher you are.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-22, 04:05 PM
Environment rules? :smallconfused:
The fact that everybody can hold their breath for at least three minutes before any negative effects begin?

Eldan
2011-01-22, 04:17 PM
This talk is making me curious, though. Has there been an attempt at a "trading card role playing game" before? It seems like it could be an interesting idea, at least.

Well, there is munchkin, kind off. Only, it's a comedy game, not very balanced and not a trading card game :smallbiggrin:

Gorgon_Heap
2011-01-22, 05:10 PM
I agree with true_shinken: Gamerlord's idea is brilliant.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-22, 09:07 PM
Then we'll rerelease the Fortune Cards as DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS- ENCOUNTER POWERS ON MOTORCYCLES! :smallbiggrin:

true_shinken
2011-01-23, 11:36 AM
Then we'll rerelease the Fortune Cards as DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS- ENCOUNTER POWERS ON MOTORCYCLES! :smallbiggrin:

Omg. You could totally see my students buying this.

Dr.Gunsforhands
2011-01-23, 01:57 PM
So, I went to Encounters last week, and they passed out some free cards. From what I can tell, they are meant to be slightly less potent than encounter powers that do the same things. The ones I remember:

1. reroll an attack roll, but take damage equal to your level
2. shift your speed during your move, but make a save or fall prone afterwards
3. gain +4 to defenses until the start of your next turn, playable only at the end of a turn where you make no attacks

I was the one playing the first two, and they both actually managed to leave me worse off when played. The last one lead to the entertaining scenario where a triceratops stubbed its toe on the fighter, but I still can't imagine trying to make a whole deck of these things.

Overall, Munchkin still wins as my favorite source of random, card-based combat silliness.

Callista
2011-01-23, 02:07 PM
So they're actually collectible cards?

...this does not bode well. At all.

Dr.Gunsforhands
2011-01-23, 02:28 PM
So they're actually collectible cards?

...this does not bode well. At all.

Indeed. But then, I am not too clear on the rules for how they are supposed to be used, either. As far as I know, I can just bring the same two cards in next week and use them again.

It actually reminds me of the random rules on the Munchkin merchandise, too. Come to think of it, fourth ed in general likes to express every round as a series of +1s and +2s, where the goal is to get the highest numbers possible without consideration for much else... and characters do tend to feel kind of interchangeable otherwise, especially in Encounters...

Egad, are they actually trying to make D&D into a parody of itself? Because if so, I'm afraid I must approve wholeheartedly.

Callista
2011-01-23, 02:37 PM
I'm getting that feeling, yeah. I am currently playing a 4th edition game and honestly, I wouldn't know what some of the others' classes were if they hadn't told me outright. They feel like they're all the same, and combat is nothing but math and geometry.

The only reason I'm putting up with this system--which I really don't like, however much people have told me "you'll like it once you've tried it"--is because the other people in my group like role-playing and mostly ignore the mechanics except when getting into battle. I think it would be very different if they were new to role-playing--it seems like we're role-playing despite the system; combat feels like we're taking a break from role-playing to play a board game. (Why are we using 4th? Because the DM bought the books and doesn't want to feel like he wasted his money. I nearly quit the group when we switched...)

Shatteredtower
2011-01-23, 03:13 PM
It comes down to math and geometry because you never need anything else. Regardless of the advantage you can get from some innovative trick, it typically pales in comparison to most at-will powers.

Once you know your players can think independently of their powers, change that.

As for the cards, I wonder if I'll see those when I pick up the Encounters package for next season. Nothing yet.

ericgrau
2011-01-23, 04:01 PM
So, I went to Encounters last week, and they passed out some free cards. From what I can tell, they are meant to be slightly less potent than encounter powers that do the same things. The ones I remember:

1. reroll an attack roll, but take damage equal to your level
2. shift your speed during your move, but make a save or fall prone afterwards
3. gain +4 to defenses until the start of your next turn, playable only at the end of a turn where you make no attacks

I was the one playing the first two, and they both actually managed to leave me worse off when played. The last one lead to the entertaining scenario where a triceratops stubbed its toe on the fighter, but I still can't imagine trying to make a whole deck of these things.

Overall, Munchkin still wins as my favorite source of random, card-based combat silliness.

The two example cards are far better. And they're "uncommon" and "rare". This only further reinforces the need to spend money to keep up.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-23, 04:35 PM
Indeed. But then, I am not too clear on the rules for how they are supposed to be used, either. As far as I know, I can just bring the same two cards in next week and use them again.

You're supposed to either open a booster (so they're random), or bring your own deck of ten (or more) cards. If you have your own deck, you get to construct it yourself, so of course you can leave out all the cards that have a drawback. Incidentally the common cards are the one with drawbacks (like falling prone), and the uncommons and rares don't have those.

Dr.Gunsforhands
2011-01-24, 02:19 AM
Huh. When I last paid attention to M:tG, Wizards was trying to distance themselves from the, "rare cards are better," scheme. They made the flashiest, most complex, and most potentially game-breaking stuff rare, but the common stuff wasn't universally worse so much as less complicated and situational.

Or so they claimed. Here it sounds like they are giving the common cards all of the extra requirements and complications. So... I guess they're doing it backwards?

Another issue I have with it is that the cards have absolutely no, 'flavor,' to incorporate them into the game. I guess you could just throw them into the same category as Action Points where your character is just taking a moment to be slightly more ridiculous than usual with no explanation except for it being dramatactically appropriate, but...

Okay, I'm honestly not sure where I was going with that.

I guess the point is that none of this makes sense, but then nothing in D&D really makes sense. The only way to translate this in-character that I can think of would be to pretend you're in an Order of the Stick campaign and let your characters know the mechanics as well as you do.

Callista
2011-01-24, 03:01 AM
I think that if a DM has a sense of fair play, he'll ban these--not because they're unbalanced necessarily; we don't know if they are yet--but because it encourages people to spend more and more money. I'm in college, and for our group, that would mean that the guy raising a kid and working can't spend nearly as much money as the guy whose parents are paying for college. That's just not fair; it's not the first guy's fault that his cash is going to pay for diapers instead of cards. When it comes to books, you can make it fair easily just by bringing them in and sharing. But with cards--how are you supposed to share those? We already have trading card games that are so dependent on your financial resources if you want to be any good at them. I don't want to add D&D to that list.

One of the things I always liked about D&D is that you could pretty much pick how much you wanted to spend on it--whether you wanted to just use the SRD, buy core books, or buy more, you could always share with your friends if you couldn't afford to buy extra books; and you could always do just whatever the guy with the most money could do. Of course it's more inconvenient not to have the books at home, and those are awfully nice books; but the point is that not having them doesn't force your character to be weaker. This would change all that... as annoying as I find 4th edition, at least it's a legitimate tabletop RPG and not a trading card game. Yet.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-24, 03:36 AM
(edit) I see that Living Forgotten Realms is already suggesting disallowing duplicate cards in your constructed deck, because they consider it a necessity for balance. This is also a lesson FC could have learned from MtG (considering how one of the first infamous decks was 20 mountains and 40 lightning bolts).



Huh. When I last paid attention to M:tG, Wizards was trying to distance themselves from the, "rare cards are better," scheme. They made the flashiest, most complex, and most potentially game-breaking stuff rare, but the common stuff wasn't universally worse so much as less complicated and situational.
Actually, it's the other way around: MtG rares tend to be situational, and staple cards (e.g. "destroy target creature") tend to be common. You can make some pretty effective decks of all commons, such as the classic "elves + fireballs" deck.

The point is that (except for its very first set), MtG has learned that you can't balance power with rarity, because people can and will obtain four or five copies of a rare card. This is probably one of the major reasons while MtG is still around after more than ten years, and why so many competing collectible cardgames collapsed.

So whoever designed Fortune Cards, it wasn't WOTC's Magic team.

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 06:22 AM
So whoever designed Fortune Cards, it wasn't WOTC's Magic team.
Or maybe it was them, but they told those guys 'screw balance, just sell this crap'

bokodasu
2011-01-24, 06:50 AM
What I don't see is why WOTC doesn't just branch out D&D.

Rename 4e DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-HEROES!
Reprint and rename 3.5 DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-ADVENTURE!
Reprint and rename 1e or 2e DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-CLASSIC!

They don't even need to make new products for all of them, people would still buy them.

Yeah, I'd buy those. At $30-$50 a pop, there's at least $250 worth of 3.5 books I wish I had. And I won't be buying any 4e anything.

But I guess that's the point - they figure the people who want those already have them, and people will have to buy a lot more cards than they did books to get the rules they want. Plus when you're talking about people who still get their money in allowances, it's more likely they'll drop $8 on a pack of cards every week for a year than buy one $40 book.

Eldan
2011-01-24, 06:53 AM
What about the new CHERRY D&D? I love the flavour!

Kris Strife
2011-01-24, 06:56 AM
What about the new CHERRY D&D? I love the flavour!

Boo! :smallmad::smalltongue:

Eldan
2011-01-24, 06:58 AM
Actually, can we rename psionics CRYSTAL D&D? :smalltongue:

LansXero
2011-01-24, 07:01 AM
2Ed Psionics would then be MethD&D :O

potatocubed
2011-01-24, 07:22 AM
Planescape: LSD&D

Eldan
2011-01-24, 07:24 AM
So, what's Spelljammer?

"Like, giant hamsters man. In space. Only, like, space is actually a flammable liquid."
"Duuuuude."

LansXero
2011-01-24, 08:05 AM
So, what's Spelljammer?

"Like, giant hamsters man. In space. Only, like, space is actually a flammable liquid."
"Duuuuude."

SpecialBrownieD&D?

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-24, 06:04 PM
Actually, it's the other way around: MtG rares tend to be situational, and staple cards (e.g. "destroy target creature") tend to be common. You can make some pretty effective decks of all commons, such as the classic "elves + fireballs" deck.

Oh! And don't forget, back when they did the Pokemon TCG, fifty-nine psychic energies and one Mewtwo that was available in a preconstructed deck! Well, yeah, in their defense, I believe they mostly just did the publishing and didn't really have any control of the game, balance-wise, but, ah, look! A distraction!


So, what's Spelljammer?
I think we all know the answer to that one.

ELVES! IN! SPAAAAAAAAAAACE!

R. Shackleford
2011-01-24, 06:31 PM
Clearly, if no one buys them, then it'll show WotC how stupid the idea is.

Like it's been said a dozen times, if you don't like them, don't buy them... but there's something that just bugs me when the idea of players vs. DM goes from being a social thing to something actually mechanically backed by the game.

I wonder who is on the design team for DnD? It can't be Magic's people, because magic's people aren't that bad at shoving products down player's throats. Then again, Magic players are at this point groomed into knowing that their cards expire in two years (regardless of if they play standard or not) while DND players are still toting books they bought in the 80's... most DND players seem to be incredibly resistant to new editions anyway, so maybe something like 4E in general was a fool's errand to begin with?

Anyway, just looking at those cards makes me wonder who'd need that much back-up in game? 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.

All in all, it's not a good sign when DND and Magic seem to blur together. I remember seeing Zendikar block and thinking that something like that might happen, but it didn't. For a good day or so I thought Sorin Markov was a M:TG drow and not a vampire...:smallsigh:

Callista
2011-01-24, 06:37 PM
I think they're catering to the group of people who not only powergame but powergame primarily to "win" against the DM and possibly the other players. Buying cards would give you a relatively small advantage; but it would still be an advantage, and people who see D&D as a competitive game will take all the advantages they can get. They're also the group of people who buy new things the most avidly (because the newer they are the more likely power creep has set in)... It's not like these are the only people who will ever use those cards (most people don't turn down power increases until they get to the point of being outright overpowered); but they're the people who will buy more of them and use the more than any other group. It's a mistake to encourage that kind of thing; we already have lots of fun competitive games to fill that niche without trying to make D&D competitive. If they want to make money off the competitive gamers, why don't they just do something like D&D Minis instead of trying to turn D&D into a trading card game?

Crow
2011-01-24, 06:51 PM
Some people will already buy a book for a single feat.

If you made the feats in that book random, with no way to check beforehand, they would buy dozens.

Just look at MMO's. If a boss drops a piece of choice gear after the third time you kill it, people will fight it 3 times. But you make it random, and they will fight it as long as it takes to get that drop.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-24, 07:20 PM
It depends on how many people there are that would really buy all these many randomized books. At least enough to be profitable in the end.

And if yes, there are that many people, then it would be dumb to NOT do that.

All we can do is that the consumers who matter aren't dumb enough to do that.

But if they do, then Wizards of the Coast just found a new gold-mine.

Eldan
2011-01-25, 03:50 AM
Some people will already buy a book for a single feat.

If you made the feats in that book random, with no way to check beforehand, they would buy dozens.

Just look at MMO's. If a boss drops a piece of choice gear after the third time you kill it, people will fight it 3 times. But you make it random, and they will fight it as long as it takes to get that drop.

Mhm. Basic psychology. Random reinforcement keeps the motivation up almost indefinitely and constantly.

Callista
2011-01-25, 07:41 AM
Or, if you're me, you've taken psychology and know very well that they're trying to jerk you around and refuse to give them any money.

LansXero
2011-01-25, 07:58 AM
Mhm. Basic psychology. Random reinforcement keeps the motivation up almost indefinitely and constantly.

It works in Magic because of FNM and organized, competitive play, which doesnt exist in D&D. The reinforcement isnt in the randomness, its in the official support. There are lots of dead CCGs out there with the same premise and similar mechanics and whatnot.

Callista
2011-01-25, 08:49 AM
Mm... true... The vast majority of collectible card games bomb within a year, usually a much shorter time. Magic is really only so well-known because it's one of the few that succeeded quickly.

The issue with these games is that you have to find a large number of people who also play. Magic is so popular that most people who play it will stick with it because it's so easy to find opponents and tournaments. A new game not only has to find new players of its own--it has to "steal" players from the big-name games.

D&D, on the other hand, already has an established fan base apart from collectible card games, so these cards will likely avoid that roadblock. On the other hand, many people who play D&D resent being asked to buy things they don't want, and since D&D is played in groups, the existence even one person who doesn't want to buy the cards will probably lean the entire group in favor of not buying them; most groups of people who play D&D are friends, or become friends, and most will avoid obvious advantages over each other--not necessarily playing fair, but avoiding the appearance of obvious advantages.

The fact that D&D is a group game, not one player versus one player, will probably doom these cards even if they do skip past the popularity roadblock.

LansXero
2011-01-25, 09:00 AM
And also, since most D&D games arent sanctioned, nothing prevents the `printer and scissors' solutions, or buying a shared deck for the group and not each individual. The only way the advent of these cards could be a positive thing imho is if it were the herald of more active organize sanctioned play. . . which Im sure it isnt :(

Callista
2011-01-25, 09:05 AM
I think that would be a bad thing anyway--you'd be forced to buy the cards and couldn't share books as easily, and people would start powergaming primarily rather than playing for fun (not that powergaming isn't useful, but it's not supposed to be the goal of the game); long-running campaigns would become much less popular and character development would happen quickly or not at all... I don't think I'd like it.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-25, 11:38 PM
Looking at the cards, I saw that each had a number out of eighty. Whether or not that it's the same set, it still leads me to prefer a preset communal deck to booster packs. Mixed blessing cards otherwise never see play once players manage to "buy out" of that range. You don't build a good reputation selling people things they have no reason to use in a rush to acquire what they would find worth having. Give them cause to use it all or stop selling so much bone in the meat you sell by volume.

If this makes the results less certain, but still generally more likey to be good than bad, the cards better reflect their advertised intent than when players can just buy a predestined hand of 'fate'.

Callista
2011-01-26, 08:03 AM
You don't build a good reputation by withdrawing all support from a popular product so people will buy the next thing, either... yeah, 3.5 rant here, but seriously, that's bad business. They'd have done much better just putting out 4th as an alternative rather than a replacement. Point being, you can't expect them to use good business practices--they seem to be going for the short-term profit at the expense of long-term stability.

LansXero
2011-01-26, 08:13 AM
You don't build a good reputation by withdrawing all support from a popular product so people will buy the next thing, either... yeah, 3.5 rant here, but seriously, that's bad business. They'd have done much better just putting out 4th as an alternative rather than a replacement. Point being, you can't expect them to use good business practices--they seem to be going for the short-term profit at the expense of long-term stability.

Which seems kinda contradictory with how another section of WotC handles thing, namely M:TG and its legacy / extended tournaments, alternate constructed rulesets (like pauper or EDH or MomirBasic in MTGO) etc. that either gives worth to ages-old material or makes sure you can play without chasing all the rares in the packs. I didnt knew it was possible for companies to have schizofrenia :S

Reverent-One
2011-01-26, 09:19 AM
Which seems kinda contradictory with how another section of WotC handles thing, namely M:TG and its legacy / extended tournaments, alternate constructed rulesets (like pauper or EDH or MomirBasic in MTGO) etc. that either gives worth to ages-old material or makes sure you can play without chasing all the rares in the packs. I didnt knew it was possible for companies to have schizofrenia :S

Even in M:TG though, they still don't produce or sell any older material. And in D&D, they don't really have to do anything to give worth to 3.5 or eariler material, as people will use it anyway.

true_shinken
2011-01-26, 09:23 AM
Even in M:TG though, they still don't produce or sell any older material. And in D&D, they don't really have to do anything to give worth to 3.5 or eariler material, as people will use it anyway.

I believe they do. Every now and then there is a reprint or something.

Sipex
2011-01-26, 09:24 AM
Every once in a while they print and sell the starter boxes with the old art on them.

What edition is that? 1st?

Kurald Galain
2011-01-26, 09:28 AM
I believe they do. Every now and then there is a reprint or something.
No, they explictly don't do that.


Every once in a while they print and sell the starter boxes with the old art on them.
They explicitly don't do that, either.

Magic doesn't reprint sets, ever. It's part of their policy, and breaking that would devalue rares, break the secondary market, and cause a general outcry. Magic does print a "new edition" every one or two years, which is a new core set. These new editions always have cards swapped out for other cards since the last edition, and generally have art changes as well. These other cards tend to be popular cards from expansion sets.

So if the MTG team were to run D&D, they would release "5th edition" (or 2011 edition, or whatever) consisting of the PHB with updated rules, and about 1/4th or 1/3rd of the powers replaced by popular choices out of Foo Power and Dragon Magazine, and after a few years swap out one PHB class for the Swordmage or Artificer. And they would, of course, make only the items from the latest edition valid on official convention play, except for the occasional "grognard game".

Loren
2011-01-26, 09:29 AM
The Corperation proved that they are psychopathic, why not schizo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vorWknUybY&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Erom
2011-01-26, 09:34 AM
Magic doesn't reprint, ever. It's part of their policy, and breaking that would devalue rares, break the secondary market, and cause a general outcry. Magic does print a "new edition" every one or two years, which is a new core set. These new editions always have cards swapped out for other cards since the last edition, and generally have art changes as well. Magic doesn't need to reprint.

They're probably getting the new editions confused with reprinting, which would be pretty reasonable since the "core set" often includes new versions of old cards, sometimes even with classic art. Maybe as much as half of a core set can be cards that match older cards mechanically, though they never print something that is perfectly identical visually to an old card. At the very least, even when they deliberately do a "retro" card, the design of the border has changed over the years, and the edition marker on the card will have changed.

Like others have said, they really are quite careful and thoughtful with MtG, making an upgrade treadmill for the serious tournament players without making it feel like a cash grab (I never played seriously but my friends who did honestly *enjoyed* exploring the new sets every couple of months/years - might have something to do with the generally creative art + mechanics they consistently produce.) and at the same time trying to take care of the players who just play at home with a mixed bag of old cards. It would be nice if, as a company, they would show the DnD brand the same measure of respect, but I suppose the respect shown to a brand by a company is probably proportional to the cash flow it generates.

true_shinken
2011-01-26, 09:35 AM
No, they explictly don't do that.
I could swear someone like that was published (maybe it was a Brazil-only thing? :smallconfused:), it almost got me back to Magic.

LansXero
2011-01-26, 09:40 AM
I could swear someone like that was published (maybe it was a Brazil-only thing? :smallconfused:), it almost got me back to Magic.

You are perhaps thinking of the Zendikar (or was it Worldwake?) release including 'old treasure' in boxes; old cards (not reprints, just unsold copies) added at random with every booster instead of a rare.

And yeah, I was mostly referring to the fact that some cards get reprints in the revisions. Mana leak, for example, has been around for years, because it keeps being made standard-legal. I was gonna make a D&D analogy but then realized I suck at it :(

true_shinken
2011-01-26, 09:54 AM
You are perhaps thinking of the Zendikar (or was it Worldwake?) release including 'old treasure' in boxes; old cards (not reprints, just unsold copies) added at random with every booster instead of a rare.

And yeah, I was mostly referring to the fact that some cards get reprints in the revisions. Mana leak, for example, has been around for years, because it keeps being made standard-legal. I was gonna make a D&D analogy but then realized I suck at it :(
Oh, that's probably it. I vaguely remember someone saying 'you can get a black lotus from a booster' and going 'omgwtfbbq'.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-26, 10:10 AM
Oh, that's probably it. I vaguely remember someone saying 'you can get a black lotus from a booster' and going 'omgwtfbbq'.

I believe there was precisely one Black Lotus included in all of Zendikar, worldwide. Of course, WOTC never stated which old cards they would include in the boosters.

But sure, why not? MTG has "ultra-rares" now, so why not have one out of every 10000 Fortune Card boosters contain a Very Special Card that fully heals you or gives +10 to damage or something like that?

true_shinken
2011-01-26, 10:14 AM
I believe there was precisely one Black Lotus included in all of Zendikar, worldwide. Of course, WOTC never stated which old cards they would include in the boosters.

But sure, why not? MTG has "ultra-rares" now, so why not have one out of every 10000 Fortune Card boosters contain a Very Special Card that fully heals you or gives +10 to damage or something like that?

As much as I despise fortune cards, I find the thought of drawing a 'You are nor a dragon!' card mildly amusing.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-26, 10:17 AM
why not have one out of every 10000 Fortune Card boosters contain a Very Special Card that fully heals you or gives +10 to damage or something like that?Indeed, why not? If there's really a profitable market for people like those playing D&D 4th edition, Wizards of the Coast would be dense to not do that.

Sipex
2011-01-26, 10:30 AM
They explicitly don't do that, either.

Er, to clarify, my post was about D&D, not magic. Every christmas these D&D boxes seem to come out. Now, maybe it's just the Red box but the art looks fantastically old on the advertisements and it doesn't say anything beyond "The Dungeons and Dragons Box Set"

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-26, 10:32 AM
Indeed, why not? If there's really a profitable market for people like those playing D&D 4th edition, Wizards of the Coast would be dense to not do that.
Probably because it'd get obsolete when The Depths of N'vwylls Expansion Pack gets added, which has a +11 to hit and gain your max HP as temporary HP as an ultra-rare. Oh, it's only an optional expansion pack, but it is mandatory for sanctioned play.


NSo if the MTG team were to run D&D, they would release "5th edition" (or 2011 edition, or whatever) consisting of the PHB with updated rules, and about 1/4th or 1/3rd of the powers replaced by popular choices out of Foo Power and Dragon Magazine...
I want a "Foo" Power Source now.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-26, 10:32 AM
Er, to clarify, my post was about D&D, not magic. Every christmas these D&D boxes seem to come out. Now, maybe it's just the Red box but the art looks fantastically old on the advertisements and it doesn't say anything beyond "The Dungeons and Dragons Box Set"

Maybe they're just the same boxes every year until someone finally buys them :smalltongue:


I want a "Foo" Power Source now.

It will be out in 3012, containing the Foodtaster (defender), Footballcoach (leader), Foolhardy (striker) and Fuchsia (controller).

DeltaEmil
2011-01-26, 10:38 AM
Probably because it'd get obsolete when The Depths of N'vwylls Expansion Pack gets added, which has a +11 to hit and gain your max HP as temporary HP as an ultra-rare. Oh, it's only an optional expansion pack, but it is mandatory for sanctioned play.Ka-Ching $$$. Wait till you see my Black Lotus Fortune Card, which also generates a colorless power bonus of 1 to all d20-rolls.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-26, 10:39 AM
It will be out in 3012, containing the Foodtaster (defender), Footballcoach (leader), Foolhardy (striker) and Fuchsia (controller).
Sweet! I just hope it doesn't get cancelled so they can make those Success Zippers I keep hearing about...


Ka-Ching $$$. Wait till you see my Black Lotus Fortune Card, which also generates a colorless power bonus of 1 to all d20-rolls.
Not so fast, Kaiba! :smalltongue:

Eldan
2011-01-26, 10:41 AM
I believe there was precisely one Black Lotus included in all of Zendikar, worldwide. Of course, WOTC never stated which old cards they would include in the boosters.

But sure, why not? MTG has "ultra-rares" now, so why not have one out of every 10000 Fortune Card boosters contain a Very Special Card that fully heals you or gives +10 to damage or something like that?

They actually make ultra-rares now? Back when I played magic, we used to joke about that.

Callista
2011-01-26, 10:43 AM
An advantage of playing an older edition: They don't change things on you every couple of months!

But haven't the core rules of Magic stayed mostly the same? In D&D, they've changed. It seems more like Magic has done the equivalent of bringing out new splatbooks with more powerful abilities, rather than changing the basic way the game is played.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-26, 10:43 AM
They will then bring out a class called Fortune Elementalist, who gets to draw special powers from mountains, plains, swamps, lakes and forests, enhanced by those fortune cards. Also, he'll summon an army of monsters and epic heroes, create artifacts and cast deadly spells with those powers, while walking the planes.

Callista
2011-01-26, 10:44 AM
Obviously, they're going to combine Magic and D&D, upon which the nerdiness will hit critical mass and implode, causing the world to end...

true_shinken
2011-01-26, 10:45 AM
But haven't the core rules of Magic stayed mostly the same?
You wish. There is no longer mana burn. I repeat: there is no longer mana burn!

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-26, 10:48 AM
They will then bring out a class called Fortune Elementalist, who gets to draw special powers from mountains, plains, swamps, lakes and forests, enhanced by those fortune cards. Also, he'll summon an army of monsters and epic heroes, create artifacts and cast deadly spells with those powers, while walking the planes.

Mortorcycle as a special mount*, also Paragon Path that lets you draw more than one fortune card per round and Epic Destiny to play more than one fortune card per round. It's okay, though, as it needs to sacrifice fortune cards in order to gain weapon and armor proficiencies.

It's a secondary controller with striker, controller, defender, and leader primaries. Needless to say, it doesn't get a familiar.

*Which can also be customized with fortune cards and draws and uses its own fortune cards separately from the player.

LansXero
2011-01-26, 10:51 AM
You wish. There is no longer mana burn. I repeat: there is no longer mana burn!

There have been some changes, yeah (damage not going to the stack sucks :( ) but they are very far and few in between. Sets are a lot like splatbooks: they usually focus on a different setting/ time period and have a strong theme that binds them together, as well as a storyline (although the more recent novels have been rather weak). So not really like the 3.5 -> 4th edition shift at all, which is why their way of doing things in D&D is rather odd. They havent discontinued support for 'grognard games'; they actually have cash prizes and events for legacy / extended games, etc.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-26, 10:53 AM
Needless to say, it doesn't get a familiarNow that is harsh. It's just like that poor gimped Lightning Warrior-class in 3.x. The Fortune Elementalist will have to sacrifice power for fluff.

bokodasu
2011-01-26, 02:05 PM
I dunno - I stopped playing Magic in '96, mostly because I couldn't keep up with all the changes. (And because I figured I'd spent enough on it.) And I understand it's a pretty different game now. (Dagnabbit, Mox gems are PERFECTLY REASONABLE. You can play them all you want at my house.)

Huh, now I'm thinking about it - I feel like I have enough Magic cards for one lifetime. And with 3.5, I have enough D&D rules. I wonder how much of their flailing is just due to the fact that they *can't* put out anything else a certain percentage of their players wants to buy? In the sense of "there is literally no product that exists or could be produced that would make them want to buy it."

Callista
2011-01-26, 02:20 PM
Actually, if they continued producing what they're producing now, they'd still have a steady business. As the old books and cards wear out, as older players introduce younger ones (and, for that matter, parents introduce their kids), new copies would be needed to replace the ones that are stacked in closets and garages. You really don't need new material to keep a hobby going... chess hasn't changed in ages, and they're still selling chess sets! D&D isn't chess, sure; but it's well on the way to being a classic game. If they can't make the transition from "This is new, you have to buy it," to, "This is fun, your friends/relatives/etc. play it and you should too," then they're going to have serious problems.

Eldan
2011-01-27, 03:19 AM
There's a lot of books I'd gladly buy. I still want Fiendish Codex III: Betrayers of Hades. Or a sourcebook on Faerie.

bokodasu
2011-01-27, 07:25 AM
Oh, I don't mean NOBODY will buy their new products; I just mean there's a percentage of their former customers who won't buy anything they will put out because they're a) happy with the product they have, b) don't want the new product and c) can't buy anything made to fit the old product because it's not made anymore.

It makes sense when you're a small electronics manufacturer - change your product every six months and don't make parts for old ones, and people will have to buy a new printer if they want to keep printing. But it's hard to make books that break with the same frequency as printers.

Again, I would buy 3.5 books if they still printed them, but they don't, so I can't. And I don't need a new system for D&D - I have one (er, ok, several), and if I need other RPGs, I've got Fudge and Gurps and Mouse Guard and WoD and and and...

tbarrie
2011-01-27, 11:59 AM
What I don't see is why WOTC doesn't just branch out D&D.

Rename 4e DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-HEROES!
Reprint and rename 3.5 DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-ADVENTURE!
Reprint and rename 1e or 2e DUNGEONS & DRAGONS-CLASSIC!

They don't even need to make new products for all of them, people would still buy them.

Isn't it generally accepted that this is one of the factors that killed TSR?


Huh. When I last paid attention to M:tG, Wizards was trying to distance themselves from the, "rare cards are better," scheme.

I'm guessing it's been a full decade since you paid attention to Magic then? To me it became crystal clear that they had given up on that back in 2002 when they did previews for Onslaught, and showed the common Daru Lancer (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=39705) and the rare Exalted Angel (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=39718) in the same week.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-27, 12:56 PM
Isn't it generally accepted that this is one of the factors that killed TSR?
What, trying to support many different not-really-compatible campaign worlds all at the same time? Yes. Even if they probably broke even on most of those (setting books aren't that expensive to produce), it still doesn't strike me as a very good business model.

Eldan
2011-01-28, 03:22 AM
Isn't it generally accepted that this is one of the factors that killed TSR?

I'm guessing it's been a full decade since you paid attention to Magic then? To me it became crystal clear that they had given up on that back in 2002 when they did previews for Onslaught, and showed the common Daru Lancer (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=39705) and the rare Exalted Angel (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=39718) in the same week.

That's a good example, though: that's Onslaught block. (It's one of those few blocks I played in). Daru Lancer was a soldier, and in Onslaught, it was all about creature type. There were dozens of cards that enhanced soldiers, and barely any that improved angels.
So, the rare works standalone, the common works best in combination with other soldiers.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-28, 09:22 AM
And for today's news flash, two more expansion sets of Fortune Cards are planned for release later this year. Also, WOTC will be releasing a deck of Treasure Cards, and a deck of "Despair Cards" for the DM's use.

Aidan305
2011-01-28, 09:55 AM
Do you have a link with any more info on the "Despair" cards and the treasure cards?

Reverent-One
2011-01-28, 11:08 AM
Do you have a link with any more info on the "Despair" cards and the treasure cards?

The liveblog of the product seminar from D&D XP that I posted here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185122) has a bit of information, at least on the Despair deck.

true_shinken
2011-01-28, 03:56 PM
Despair deckfor DMs? Now they are sterring you towards players vs DMs? :smallconfused:

Reverent-One
2011-01-28, 04:07 PM
Despair deckfor DMs? Now they are sterring you towards players vs DMs? :smallconfused:

No, they represent the results of the environment of the shadowfell.


He is most excited about the Despair Deck. Divided into 3 aspects: madness, fear, and apathy. Adds flavor and atmosphere to game, gives cards to players and they affect their players. “Jealous” “Craven” “Fearless” are examples. Used for flavor and for mechanical benefits. If they overcome those effects they become more resistant to gloom and despair present in the Shadowfell.

true_shinken
2011-01-28, 04:15 PM
No, they represent the results of the environment of the shadowfell.

So it's a planar environment table that comes in cards?

Reverent-One
2011-01-28, 04:16 PM
So it's a planar environment table that comes in cards?

Pretty much.

Sipex
2011-01-28, 04:17 PM
I know they're going for money but if the environment cards are specific to the shadowfell, why not just release a shadowfell sourcebook and include the table in that?

Unless they're doing the Despair deck via booster packs.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-28, 04:22 PM
I know they're going for money but if the environment cards are specific to the shadowfell, why not just release a shadowfell sourcebook and include the table in that?
Probably because every other RPG already does it like that, and they're trying to add play value? Emphasis on "trying".

Reverent-One
2011-01-28, 04:22 PM
I know they're going for money but if the environment cards are specific to the shadowfell, why not just release a shadowfell sourcebook and include the table in that?

Unless they're doing the Despair deck via booster packs.

To my understanding, there's no booster pack for the Despair cards, you get the whole set of them in the Shadowfell boxed set. If I had to guess, they made them cards so the DM can just give the card with all relevent information on the effect to the player, and the player can give it back when they shake it off.

Sipex
2011-01-28, 04:29 PM
Oh okay...that actually sounds kind of useful then.

Highly situational but if you're running a campaign that way and have players who forget these sorts of things (mine) then yeah, I could see it working.

The New Bruceski
2011-01-28, 04:49 PM
At what point do we get to re-enact the KODT Coupon Wars? Players and DM's holding cards threateningly in a mutually-assured destruction standoff.

Aemoh87
2011-01-28, 04:57 PM
Is anyone really surprised that 4E is dying like this?

I know minis were to expensive to make and not enough people bought them but come on they made it almost necessary to have minis in 4E. Plus now people are gonna have to buy cards of ebay to play DND, it might as well be magic or yugi oh.

OracleofWuffing
2011-01-28, 05:20 PM
And for today's news flash, two more expansion sets of Fortune Cards are planned for release later this year. Also, WOTC will be releasing a deck of Treasure Cards, and a deck of "Despair Cards" for the DM's use.

Oh, see? You got your wish! They actually are releasing Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium! :smallamused: Why waste money on binding and ISBNs when this way is so much cash grabby better for the game?

Kurald Galain
2011-01-28, 05:35 PM
At what point do we get to re-enact the KODT Coupon Wars?
That's a webcomic, isn't it? Do you have a link to that particular plot?

Analytica
2011-01-28, 07:17 PM
(edit) I see that Living Forgotten Realms is already suggesting disallowing duplicate cards in your constructed deck, because they consider it a necessity for balance. This is also a lesson FC could have learned from MtG (considering how one of the first infamous decks was 20 mountains and 40 lightning bolts).

Will this really help, though? If there are enough cards in total, that means that if you spend a whole lot of money, then you can have an all-rare deck with no duplicates even in these restricted settings. That might even make the problem (to my mind a problem, at least) worse, because it just makes the power disparity all the more dependent on how much the player paid.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-28, 08:08 PM
I may be okay with treasure cards. It works quite well for a table that can change weekly. Possibly despair cards, assuming they aren't based around booster packs. I like handouts and hate my own handicraft results.

J.Gellert
2011-01-28, 08:16 PM
Will this really help, though? If there are enough cards in total, that means that if you spend a whole lot of money, then you can have an all-rare deck with no duplicates even in these restricted settings. That might even make the problem (to my mind a problem, at least) worse, because it just makes the power disparity all the more dependent on how much the player paid.

Oooh look at you, you are so cute, how you don't understand marketing :redface:

:smallsmile:

The New Bruceski
2011-01-29, 12:34 AM
That's a webcomic, isn't it? Do you have a link to that particular plot?

Knights of the Dinner Table is actually a print comic. I'm poking around to see if anything's free online but other than that it looks like coupons first came up in a Q&A in issue 70 and the actual coupon war (second one, it seems the first didn't occur on-screen) starts in issue 120 and goes through 129. The strip synopsis I found ended at 130 but there were definite repercussions down the line.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-29, 05:53 AM
Knights of the Dinner Table is actually a print comic.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I remember finding them for sale at conventions for what I thought were rather excessive prices. I reserve my comic book money for e.g. OOTS books instead :smallsmile:

Gamerlord
2011-01-29, 08:12 AM
Isn't it generally accepted that this is one of the factors that killed TSR?





I said they did not actually need to make new products for them, just reprint them.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-29, 11:45 PM
Okay, I now have 17 Fortune cards, part of a nice reward for running the Encounters season. I will admit they look pretty. Each pack included one card with a picture, and the third was a promotional card. If these are meant to be stronger cards than the norm, it's not with these three.

Gambler's Eye was the first of this, giving either a bonus or penalty to your attack rolls for the turn, depending on whether or not you roll higher than 9 on a d20 to determine the card's effect. Gambler's Sidestep is the defensive equivalent. I like these, because players will have to adapt to either result. I liked the third, Stronger Together, as well, because the players have to cooperate to set up this advantage, winding up packed tightly together as a consequence if they want a larger bonus.

Of the others, I can see how some of the attack cards will be more popular with certain classes, races, and powers, but that's not so clear for the defense or tactic cards I got. Play, hold, or discard might not be an easy choice.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-30, 03:33 PM
To further that point, if no more than 40% of your deck (which must be designed in multiples of 10 cards) can be defense, would you want every one of those cards to grant a bonus to one move, to avoid granting combat advantage while flanked, negating combat advantage granted to one attack, an AC bonus based on the proximity of allies, or the ability to negate any forced movement? If you take a mix of the best of those, when would you hold one indefinitely, denying yourself any other option, and which would you take with the knowledge that you'd intend to discard it immediately in most fights?

The tactic cards include ones to reroll a save, reduce the effects of a fall, move through enemy spaces (at considerable risk, but certain builds live for this trick), or enter ally's spaces at no movement cost. Do you see anything there that you'd always want more than anything else.

So it's not a necessary addition to the game, but the 20% of the deck I've seen to date doesn't seem to break it either.

Ravens_cry
2011-01-30, 04:19 PM
I said they did not actually need to make new products for them, just reprint them.
That would be probably almost as expensive as making them in the first place.

LansXero
2011-01-30, 04:43 PM
That would be probably almost as expensive as making them in the first place.

They could always reformat the old version files and publish them as buyable PDFs for a fraction of the cost of the old books. While the initial investment might be a tad large, the cost for each individual pdf is 0, right?

Fox Box Socks
2011-01-30, 05:20 PM
I'm confused: I'm playing D&D. Why in the hell are people drawing cards from a deck?

Callista
2011-01-30, 05:35 PM
They could always reformat the old version files and publish them as buyable PDFs for a fraction of the cost of the old books. While the initial investment might be a tad large, the cost for each individual pdf is 0, right?Slightly more than zero because of the cost required to transfer the PDF over the internet. But yes. They could do this; they're not.


I'm confused: I'm playing D&D. Why in the hell are people drawing cards from a deck?My thoughts exactly. If people are drawing cards from a deck, they should be wondering why exactly the DM is risking ruining their game by giving them a major artifact.

D&D has never depended particularly much on gimmicks beyond a grid, dice, and minis. Forcing people to lug around yet more stuff and think about yet more numbers is just annoying and doesn't add to the game at all. In D&D, the story takes place in your head. The numbers are just there to make it fair.

randomhero00
2011-01-30, 05:44 PM
YUCK- 4e is pretty much over for me if they introduce trading cards. That is so what an RPG is NOT about.

PS(Because trading cards are about who has the most money)

Fox Box Socks
2011-01-30, 05:47 PM
This is it. This is where I officially get off the bus.

Want to change editions? That's cool. I was sick of playing an edition held together by duct tape and the OGL anyway.

Want to rebuild from scratch? Fine. You seem to know what you're doing, so I'll go along.

Want to make each class have powers? A little MMOish when viewed on paper, but man does it work wonderfully in play. I can dig it.

Want to make booster packs for Gamma World? A little odd, but okay. Gamma World has that whole wastelands Gonzo thing going for it, so building a deck for mutations and whatnot is something I can grok.

Want to rebuild from scratch AGAIN? Well, it's 100% backwards compatible with my edition of choice, so cool beans. Power level is fine too, so I can pay what I want and my buddy can play what he wants and everybody ends up happy.

Force me to buy, build, and subsequently draw from a deck of special cards? No. NO. This I refuse. I'm banning them from my table. I'm banning people who talk about them from my table. If anyone brings them to my table, I'm burning his deck in front of him, then banning him from my table.

This. Is. Monumentally. Asinine.

Nameless Ghost
2011-01-30, 05:55 PM
I don't mind the idea. I think the implementation kills it though.

The WoTC article seems to suggest that each player would have a deck of cards that they bought, traded, etc and the cards would be optimised to make their character get a bunch of powerful effects.

Making them mandatory for WoTC play (which I know nothing about) isolates anybody who doesn't want to use the cards or can't get hold of the rare ones.

I think the only correct way for this type of thing to work would be to sell a full deck as a product to enhance games. Turning D&D into M:tG with roleplaying is not the way they should be going.

And... assuming that they were to take the option I suggested, what stops the DM from making a list of d20 benefits and having the players roll on it at certain times instead? Whatever happened to tables of things to roll on? :smallfrown:

Reverent-One
2011-01-30, 05:58 PM
The WoTC article seems to suggest that each player would have a deck of cards that they bought, traded, etc and the cards would be optimised to make their character get a bunch of powerful effects.

That would have to require the cards to give out powerful effects though. Which, from what I've seen, they don't do.


And... assuming that they were to take the option I suggested, what stops the DM from making a list of d20 benefits and having the players roll on it at certain times instead? Whatever happened to tables of things to roll on? :smallfrown:

Nothing stops a DM from doing that. For your second question, tables don't sell like cards do.

Erom
2011-01-30, 06:40 PM
Personally, I'm banning them from my table just because I don't think 4th edition needs another set of mechanics. I tolerate complexity in my rule-set if it adds fun, verisimilitude, or optimally both. I don't think the cards do that.

I think the argument that "it allows people to trade money for power" and "it doesn't feel like dnd" could both be overcome with careful design of the cards. It COULD be done well. I still wouldn't use them, cause they're unnecessary rules bloat.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-30, 07:28 PM
If people are drawing cards from a deck, they should be wondering why exactly the DM is risking ruining their game by giving them a major artifact.
Sweet Vecna, why? That is not a fair comparison.


D&D has never depended particularly much on gimmicks beyond a grid, dice, and minis.
Depend, no, but TSR also dabbled in irrelevant merchandise. At this one encourages people to consider playing options other than drow ranger with scimitars.


Forcing people to lug around yet more stuff and think about yet more numbers is just annoying and doesn't add to the game at all.
You see only numbers. I see choices where I didn't expect any. Like interactive role playing, I can see how story can be built from it. It's an ancient technique, letting props guide story.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-30, 07:56 PM
I admit, I had thought this was a case of money for power. What I've seen doesn't bear that out.

Let's say you put four Gambler's Eye in your deck. If you get the bonus, do you throw down your action point and two encounter or daily powers? If you'd have hit anyway, was the move wasted? If you get the penalty instead (45% chance), do you rethink your next action?

Is this less common card so much better than, say, the common Skulking Strike, which will let you check to stay hidden after making an attack? No, but I'm not sure I'd load any rogue down with that card either. And if I'm hidden and don't have that card in play, will I really wait a turn in case it comes up next time?

Fox Box Socks
2011-01-30, 10:56 PM
{Scrubbed}

The open secret about TCGs is that they are, in fact, really, really expensive. A competitive Standard M:TG deck will set you back anywhere between $200 and half a grand, give or take. Yu-Gi-Oh is worse. The entire hobby is an enormous, insatiable money pit, occasionally demanding that you throw X amount of money at it so that you can stop being terrible. I know this. You know this. WotC practically has built their business model on this.

To play D&D, bare bones, all you need is 3 books (Dungeon Master's Guide, Player's Handbook, Monster Manual), a screen, pencils, paper, and a few minis (maybe). The entire package shouldn't set you back more than $75. One of the reasons that the D&D is so popular with those stationed overseas is that it's a relatively small package (and price point) for a game with such endless replayability. This Fortune Card deck being mandatory thing? This is a major threat to that.

I get attached to my characters. I want them to do well, I want them to be good at what they do, and I certainly don't want them to die. And if I'm playing in a game where the DM says we each need our own Fortune deck, I'm going to be sorely tempted whenever I see them when I'm in Barnes and Noble or whatever. I'll see the little packet of cards, and they'll call out to me. "Buy me", they'll say, "buy me or else your paladin will die". And then I'll buy them, because I'm a sucker and I don't want my paladin will die. And then I'll finally get my deck the way I want it, and then WotC will come out with a new set chock full of cards that I also want and I'll have to buy those. And then the campaign will end, and I'll start up a new game only this time I'll want to play a rogue instead of a paladin only I don't have all the cards I need to build a deck suitable for rogues so I'll have to buy more and before you know it I've dropped $300 on those damn cards.

This is a cash grab. There is nothing anyone can say to convince me that this is not a cash grab. I like D&D because it's relatively cheap and fun and I can play it over and over again without getting bored. This can't be good for the hobby.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-31, 01:11 AM
Fox Box Socks, that is terribly overstated.

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. LFR and Encounters were already using hand-out cards, though the former were much more generous and the latter had frustrating limits on their use.

Second, your character is unlikely to die for want of these. If survival depends on having the right card from a set in play in every round, your odds are hardly any better with the cards than without them.

Third, will they be replaced each year with a new set of 80, or with class-based sets? Could be. Will they be required for home play, in a game some folks managed to play without miniatures, official or otherwise? Doubtful.

Finally, I know what the minimum number of books to run the game is. I also know how many players will not play in a game even close to that minimum.

turkishproverb
2011-01-31, 01:43 AM
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. LFR and Encounters were already using hand-out cards, though the former were much more generous and the latter had frustrating limits on their use.

That's a ridiculous argument. Strength, Dex, Con, Int, Wisdom, and Charisma are "mandatory for 'official' games only". In call of Cthulhu Madness is "mandatory for 'official' games only". In Magic: the Gathering Tapping is "mandatory for 'official' games only". In chess being able to capture pieces by moving into their square is "mandatory for 'official' games only". If it's a requirement, it is a requirement. Don't try to say otherwise. If you add something to the game, and say it is required, you don't get to argue it isn't required. The very claim is absurd.

If you like the cards, feel free to do so, but saying they aren't mandatory is lot of hooey. Stop pussyfooting around the issue.


They could always reformat the old version files and publish them as buyable PDFs for a fraction of the cost of the old books. While the initial investment might be a tad large, the cost for each individual pdf is 0, right?

They did, then they pulled them claiming it was because of unrelated pirating, even though it was pretty obvious that they were afraid the old stuff would compete with A: 4th Edition and B: (which became obvious later) D&D insider.