# Fortune Cards: and randomized collectible cards come to D&D



## Greg K (Aug 20, 2010)

Per Mike Mearls from an interview

Fortune Cards

MM: "Similar to Gamma World cards, we are going to be doing fortune cards for D&D. They are collectible cards that give the same kind of random dramatic element to the game. The player can alter the action a little bit by using a random benefit. As a whole they make the game a little more unpredictable and makes things work out in an interesting new way."


Read more: Wizards of the Coast Gen Con Interview – Part 2 of 2 (D&D / Gamma World / Fortune Cards) | LivingDice.com


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 20, 2010)

I really have to wonder just who at WotC read the _satire_ of collectible rpg material in KODT and thought actually making those would be a Good IdeaTM...


----------



## Greg K (Aug 20, 2010)

I think they took a good idea (Torg Drama deck, DCUniverse deck, Marvel Saga Deck, and the Savage World Action Deck) that would have been cool only to "f" it up by turning into a collectable thing.


----------



## Festivus (Aug 20, 2010)

I wonder if those won't be something akin to twitter buffs (I said the same about Gamma World and was wrong but hey, I like the Gamma World ones).  Something environmental (e.g. a fog rolls in and grants concealment to all combatants).   I have little to no interest in things like this, but I could see where some would find it fun.

Or perhaps something like the Harrow deck in Pathfinder... but if it's collectible I have no idea.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 20, 2010)

And, _yet again_, dubya for teh lulz. Goin' fer broke, since '08.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 20, 2010)

My first thought is, "Paizo released those just recently."

Though Paizo's aren't collectible, just a deck of cards that players can draw from when they level and then use at some point to try and get the DM to make some adjustment to the story-line.


----------



## WarlockLord (Aug 20, 2010)

Wow.  It's like they're _trying_ to prove all the 3.5 fanbois right.  Wasn't one of the constant allegations "they're making D&D more like MtG?"

Good thing the D&D department of WotC won't be recieving my money anytime soon.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 20, 2010)

Wicht said:


> My first thought is, "Paizo released those just recently."
> 
> Though Paizo's aren't collectible, just a deck of cards that players can draw from when they level and then use at some point to try and get the DM to make some adjustment to the story-line.




Yeah, based on what little has been said and what they are calling the cards, it sounds very much like D&D Fortune cards will be a lot like the GameMastery Plot Twist Cards.  Which, IMO, is an awesome thing.  The collectible aspect doesn't bother me a bit, mostly because the sky doesn't constantly fall on my head.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 20, 2010)

frankthedm said:


> I really have to wonder just who at WotC read the _satire_ of collectible rpg material in KODT and thought actually making those would be a Good IdeaTM...






Greg K said:


> I think they took a good idea (Torg Drama deck, DCUniverse deck, Marvel Saga Deck, and the Savage World Action Deck) that would have been cool only to "f" it up by turning into a collectable thing.






WarlockLord said:


> Wow.  It's like they're _trying_ to prove all the 3.5 fanbois right.  Wasn't one of the constant allegations "they're making D&D more like MtG?"
> 
> Good thing the D&D department of WotC won't be recieving my money anytime soon.




Whatever dudes.  Keep cryin' in yer milk, but . . . love 'em or hate 'em . . . Fortune Cards are not, 1) the end of D&D as we know it, 2) making D&D like Magic in any way, and 3) a bad thing for the game.

I respect anybody who takes a look at the eventual previews we'll get, or the cards themselves, and says, "Nope, not for me!".  But all this wailing and gnashing over, "Oh noes, D&D is now Magic" just gets repetitive and tiring.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 20, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Whatever dudes.  Keep cryin' in yer milk, but . . . love 'em or hate 'em . . . Fortune Cards are not, 1) the end of D&D as we know it, 2) making D&D like Magic in any way, and 3) a bad thing for the game.
> 
> I respect anybody who takes a look at the eventual previews we'll get, or the cards themselves, and says, "Nope, not for me!".  But all this wailing and gnashing over, "Oh noes, D&D is now Magic" just gets repetitive and tiring.




I have no respect for opinion based on what you wrote.  I also don't see anybody whining, but stating their opinion that the collectible aspect is a bad thing.  Since the issue is about the collectible aspect, there is no need to see the cards. But, hey, if you like it knock yourself out.

And, now ,where is the ignore button (I guess the thing will be useful).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 20, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Whatever dudes.  Keep cryin' in yer milk, but . . .




If you have points to make, please make them in a civil fashion without dissing people who have a different view.


----------



## TirionAnthion (Aug 20, 2010)

*Cards*

It is important to note that the cards are not required to play the game. In no way do you need the cards. The cards add a random element to the game. The intent is that you should buy a pack and crack it during play to generate some random events. 

Despite the use of the word "collectible" in the short description, WotC people stressed several times in Gen Con seminars that these cards are not meant to be collected and used to build decks for play. A DM could build an event deck from his card collection but it is not the most important aspect of the cards.

Once again, they are entirely optional. If you do not want them you do not need to buy them. I for one, will probably pick up a pack occasionally but I feel no need to collect all the cards. If you don't like the cards, you do not have to buy them. 

I think all of us here at ENworld need to try spending some more time talking about what we enjoy about our hobby and less time focusing on what we don't like. Reading these boards lately has felt like one group sniping at another constantly. Everyone is at fault. I know it's fun to belittle the things we don't like, that is just human nature. Doing that makes us feel better about ourselves, at least in the short term. Over time it creates a toxic environment.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant a little. <puts soapbox away>
<waits patiently for snarky response.>


----------



## unan oranis (Aug 20, 2010)

They're saying it's not collectible.

But it is randomized?  

Why not one full deck?

They figure they'll sell more?

I just can't see how it's not at least as collectible as "garbage pail kids" ... so even if theirs no competitive angle it's still a cheap trick.



I want some.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 20, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> If you have points to make, please make them in a civil fashion without dissing people who have a different view.




Yeah, you're right.  Sorry about that.  Apologies to frankthedm, Greg K, and Warlock Lord (plus anybody else that got annoyed by the post in question).

I'd double my subscription cost to ENWorld for a feature that sends me an email before each post actually gets posted to the site that basically asks, "Are you sure you want to post this?"

I get frustrated with what I see as valid opinions (do I like this feature or not) that get inflated with hyperbolic language (D&D is now like Magic) . . . . only to sometimes go overboard myself.  Way overboard.  Looking at my post in retrospect, I was not only being unfair and rude, but exhibiting the very behavior that I was trying to call out (unfairly).

I won't wait for Morrus to add my wished for feature above, I'll work on being more civil and fair to avoid posts like this in the first place.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 20, 2010)

Much appreciated, thanks.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 20, 2010)

unan oranis said:


> They're saying it's not collectible.  But it is randomized?  Why not one full deck?  They figure they'll sell more?  I just can't see how it's not at least as collectible as "garbage pail kids" ... so even if theirs no competitive angle it's still a cheap trick.  I want some.




(Sorry to condense your post unan)

From what we know so far about the cards, they are definitely collectible.  But they are not collectible in the same sense as other CCGs (Collectible Card Games).  

As several folks keep trying to point out, the GW cards are an optional expansion to the game.  In Magic, you have to collect a decent amount of cards before you can build a competive deck, even in casual play (unless you purchase a pre-constructed deck, but part of the fun of Magic is creating your own deck).  In Gamma World, if you want to add more zany mutations and tech to your game, they're there.  But if you don't, the game plays just fine without any boosters.

In Magic, you've probably got to purchase 6 - 10 boosters at least to start building your own decks.  Or get some sort of boxed set, like the new "Deckbuilder's Kit" or a "Fat Pack".  And even then you'd still probably want more boosters to be able to build and play a well-constructed, fine-tuned deck.  With Gamma World, you can purchase however many boosters as you want, and you're ability to play the game is unchanged.  You can buy a case of boosters to try and get the whole set, or you can buy 1 booster and call it good.

Could WotC have used a similar mechanic, drawing random cards from a deck for powers and gear, but used a different packaging scheme?  Sure, they could have released a non-random "Expansion Deck 1" (and so on), or experimented with some other scheme.

So, why random boosters rather than an "expansion deck"?  If you have just purchased the Gamma World RPG, and you're curious about getting more cards to expand your game, a single booster (and it looks like they'll be 8-card boosters) will likely only run you $2-$3.  An easy purchase to make (and an easy sale for WotC).  An "expansion deck" on the other hand, would run at least $10, probably more . . . a 65-card Magic decks run $13 (40 card deck plus one 15-card booster).

Of course, if you want to easily collect all the cards, a deck or expansion box would get you all the cards in one fell swoop . . . but for a non-randomized model would likely end up costing more per card.

Also keep in mind that the complete card set is likely to be much smaller than a CCG card set, so if you must collect them all you'll probably drop less cash to do it than you would with the latest Magic expansion.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 20, 2010)

One aspect of the new cards that WotC is experimenting with has me curious, the different game functions of the Gamma World cards and the D&D Fortune Cards.  They are both going to be packaged in random boosters, but how they are used will be different.

The Gamma World cards represent powers and gear your character has access to.  You randomly choose what you get during character creation, and certain triggers in the game can cause you to randomly draw new powers and/or gear to either supplement or replace what you started with.

The Fortune Cards (as far as we know) DON'T represent your D&D character's powers and gear, but rather random events of fortune or fate that can change the direction of the story (perhaps in a small way, or perhaps significantly).

Does anybody like one of the functions above and dislike the other?  Or, as I mentioned in another similar thread, are folks more bothered by how the cards are used in game . . . or how they are packaged (random boosters) . . . or both?


----------



## Reynard (Aug 20, 2010)

As much as i am always looking for an excuse to gnash teeth over the current stewardship of D&D, this just ain't that big of a deal. It looks like the fortune cards will be no more or less "collectible" and/or necessary than the D&D Minis were -- which is to say, a lot and not at all, respectively. If it's a test bed for adding a CCG element to core D&D game play and character design, it's a piss poor one: the GW mutation and tech cards are a much better idea for that kind of thing. Don't get me wrong, I think for an RPG the idea of using a CCG to build a character is terrible, but it isn't necessarily a bad idea for a game within the D&D brand, if you get my meaning.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Aug 20, 2010)

I'll be buying these: they sound great. I love things that add a bit more chance to the game: helps keep things novel. In this respect, I fully approve of the collectible aspect. A want a new card every time!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2010)

The cards are completely optional and experimental at this stage. Making them a hard coded mandatory part of the game at this point would be like dropping the proverbial frog straight into boiling water. I think we may see more elements like these released slowly and gradually. The success of these elements will determine their impact on 5E.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 20, 2010)

Random cards sound fun...

iirc they said, that you actually should open them right at the table... so random seems like the best idea...


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Aug 20, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> One aspect of the new cards that WotC is experimenting with has me curious, the different game functions of the Gamma World cards and the D&D Fortune Cards.  They are both going to be packaged in random boosters, but how they are used will be different.
> 
> The Gamma World cards represent powers and gear your character has access to.  You randomly choose what you get during character creation, and certain triggers in the game can cause you to randomly draw new powers and/or gear to either supplement or replace what you started with.
> 
> ...




I like gaming stuff, and more gaming stuff on the market is fine by me.

I love the game Once Upon a Time from Atlas Games, and the Plot Twist and Fortune cards remind me of that game. That's not an RPG though.

For RPGs, I think the idea of randomized gear and powers/mutations a la the Gamma World model is not fun. At all. I'm not sure I would even play in such a game if someone else ran it and gave me all the cards. Aw who am I kidding, sure I would if I liked the group. But I sure wouldn't go out of my way to play it.

I like collectible stuff. I love opening up D&D minis boxes for that "What did I get?" feeling. But I don't see that for these PLot Twist/Fortune cards. For one, I like minis more than cards. For two, well, I'll have to see the art work, but I doubt it will be anything that makes me buy the cards instead of, if I want to use them, just printing them myself. That's what I do for the Apples to Apples games I play in school: I tailor the cards for the students to get them talking about certain subjects in homeroom/advisory. 

I like the idea of cards in RPGs. Why not? But I think they should be cards that support the theme of the game. Like, here's a Dark Vengeance pack of cards. And it has in it lines of dialogue like, "You spit upon all those who loved you. Did you think this day wouldn't come?" and you get a bonus action point/bennie/Mood point when you use that line or paraphrase it (that's an option I included in Spellbound Kingdoms). So the DM can stack the deck with cards that support the type of campaign that's going on. Doesn't have to be just dialogue - for the Dark Vengeance pack, you could get cards where you filled in the name of someone who wronged you, then play them for a bonus on your Vengeance... just thinking out loud. But I like the idea of cards that are little things that push play in one themed direction to support a particular campaign more than I like cards that are just "Random X happens."


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 20, 2010)

So, the appropriate comparison here is DDM rather than M:tG?

*shrug* No particular interest here. I don't think it's a sign of D&D going to the dogs or anything, but it doesn't appeal to me.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2010)

unan oranis said:


> They're saying it's not collectible.
> 
> But it is randomized?
> 
> ...





It seems like they're designed to be used in place of say a random table in a book. Only this table is constantly expandable instantly every time you open a pack of cards.

I think part of the fun is intended to be grabbing a random pack or two before the game and opening them and playing them right on the spot... Releasing them as a complete deck spoils this part a bit. 

It would still be random sure, but unwrapping the surprise is kind of fun.

I wonder if at the end they'll release the whole set at once.

Also... Grabage Pail Kids??? Dude you are OLD!  (Adam Bomb FTW!)


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 20, 2010)

Ok my first reaction when hearing this is: MtG
Sorry but that is initial reaction when hearing this.

I think it's a wrong step to go, at least in my games it would be for me.  Sure I might glean ideas from it for a random encounter, but to allow for it to have game changing aspects.  Nay it would be like having a life Deck of Many Things mixed with a Rod of Wonder.  Honestly what harm could it do..............  oops.

But it does harkin a bit back to 2E and the Card Packs we had than.  They were 'collectible' and random in the individual packs.  Or you could buy the full set (think it was released a month or two later) as a full box set.  I did use that for planning purposes, if it was a cool card I would build an adventure around it.
Also in 2E I recall having Priest & Wizard Spell cards with all their spells as cards to collect.  Again random packs with full sets later.

Now if it is just like those use to be, I wouldn't get too upset over them.  I found them fun accessories.  But if it makes for actual in play game changing aspects, i.e. turning a miss into a hit and vice versa, it won't make it to a game I run.

Don't like them, don't buy it.  Seems pretty simple to me.
Most of us grognards can't get too upset over it, as many of us recalled the card decks of 2E and mentioned we liked them in previous threads.  Can you fault a WotC rep seeing that possibly and seeing the opportunity to cash in on the randomness portion?


----------



## Tortoise (Aug 20, 2010)

Before I can pass judgement, I'd have to see them.

If it's as simple as something to enhance the scene (fog or strange smoke pours in giving everyone a minor conceilment bonus) then I'm all for it since that sounds interesting under the right circumstances.

Keeping in mind that the DM always has veto power over these things, I cannot see the harm. Doesn't mean I like the random/collectible aspect of it.


----------



## Tortoise (Aug 20, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Grabage Pail Kids??? Dude you are OLD!  (Adam Bomb FTW!)




If old is Garbage Pail Kids, then what does the original inspiration for those (Wacky Packages) make me? Egad!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 20, 2010)

Scribble said:


> It seems like they're designed to be used in place of say a random table in a book. Only this table is constantly expandable instantly every time you open a pack of cards.
> 
> I think part of the fun is intended to be grabbing a random pack or two before the game and opening them and playing them right on the spot... Releasing them as a complete deck spoils this part a bit.




Exactly. And if you want a "full deck" I'm sure someone on eBay will have them at a reasonable price.



TheYeti1775 said:


> Ok my first reaction when hearing this is: MtG
> Sorry but that is initial reaction when hearing this.




The only way these cards will be able to be compared to MtG or any other CCG is if we end up with Fortunes that are Common, Uncommon, Rare, and Mythic Rare (or some other rarity designation). Without rarity each card is equal and the collectibility factor stays even, making finding whole sets for those that don't like the random thing much much easier.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Exactly. And if you want a "full deck" I'm sure someone on eBay will have them at a reasonable price.




Well of _course _you will want a full deck. Nobody likes being accused of playing without a full deck.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 20, 2010)

The fortune deck sounds like Whimsy Cards from Lion Rampant.  Play a card to alter the gameplay - everything from direct mechanic effects like "Spectacular Success", character (PC or NPC) choice constraints like  "Excessive Caution", to sudden changes in environment like "Abrupt Change of Events".

The whole collectible/randomised features are different and no doubt set up to drive sales from completionists.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Aug 20, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Also in 2E I recall having Priest & Wizard Spell cards with all their spells as cards to collect.  Again random packs with full sets later.




You must be misremembering. The 2e "Deck of ____ Spells" were complete sets from the start (with all spells from the PHB and Tome of Magic). No randomness, no boosters, no expansions etc. at all.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 20, 2010)

I think my main beef with the idea is the booster-expansion aspect. I much prefer Paizo's model of buy it once and then you have it, for this sort of thing. And since Paizo tried the randomized boosters with their item cards and found out that they sold better non-randomized, I figure I'm not alone in that. 

We use Paizo's Critical Fumble and Critical Hit decks in every game and they add a fun aspect to the game. I'm thinking of getting the Plot Twist Cards for myself for Christmas.  But I would refuse to buy randomized boosters of the same as I collect too much as it is and don't need another money-siphoning gaming addiction.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 20, 2010)

Fortune Cards are just a supplement in booster pack form. I ignored Tomb of Magic in 3.5, I can ignore these. I'm certainly not going to let the existence of a supplement spoil my enjoyment of D&D.

That said, I have a wacky idea: if Wizards wants to add a supplement to the game that has a randomized element, why don't they go back to putting out frequent miniature sets that are fully randomized? Seriously, the biggest complaint about those things was that they were random. If Wizards doesn't care about that, then why don't they go back to it? Random minis, I will buy.



ExploderWizard said:


> Well of _course _you will want a full deck. Nobody likes being accused of playing without a full deck.



I'm used to it by now.


----------



## malraux (Aug 20, 2010)

Out of question, how would something like this be any different from the Deck of Many Things, only less powerful?


----------



## Nagol (Aug 20, 2010)

If it is like the Whimsy Cards then it is different from DoMT in two ways:


It affects the game at a narrative level as opposed in affecting the character or environment at a palpable level.  If "Excessive Caution" card is used, it doesn't dictate what the reasons for the caution.  An "Abrupt Change of Events" can be anything the GM or troupe can come up with that is plausible.

The general effect is known by the player in advance and the choice to play it is under player control.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 20, 2010)

Oh no, they got random chance in my RPG!

I'll be boycotting these, just like I boycott all dice and random tables in the books. 

Ok, I know that isn't a complete view of the situation, but seriously - I think Scribble has the right of this, that these largely are just an expandable way to add some random effects to the game. You are neither required to buy them, nor particularly rewarded for 'collecting' them, and so I see nothing for any to be alarmed about. 

If people like them, they will buy them. If you don't, you don't have to, and from what most people are saying, you weren't likely going to be buying them anyway.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think my main beef with the idea is the booster-expansion aspect. I much prefer Paizo's model of buy it once and then you have it, for this sort of thing. And since Paizo tried the randomized boosters with their item cards and found out that they sold better non-randomized, I figure I'm not alone in that.




It's a difference in how it's intended to be used though (at least I think with my limited knowledge of them.)

The item decks work better as a full set all at once because when you build your character you know what equipment he has. If the decks were randomized, and you didn't have a card for some peice of equipment you had, you'd either need to not use the cards, or keep collecting till you got it... 

The fortune decks (if they ARE like the twitter buffs)  aren't designed to be known ahead of time. You're not supposed to / don't need to  put together a deck of awesome buffs. You just open the card and whatever random card happens to be drawn- that's what you get.

There's no "O darn I need to find this card so I can use this power or item" aspect to it.   If you don't have a particular card, it doesn't matter, it won't effect the usability of the cards or change your game at all.


p.s. Notice WoTC also puts out decks of character powers that are NOT randomized... They're designed to be used like the item deck. If you have a power you'll want the card, so they sell them to you all at once.

It's only the aspects that are designed to be used in a random fashion that they seem to be offering in randomized packs.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 20, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The only way these cards will be able to be compared to MtG or any other CCG is if we end up with Fortunes that are Common, Uncommon, Rare, and Mythic Rare (or some other rarity designation). Without rarity each card is equal and the collectibility factor stays even, making finding whole sets for those that don't like the random thing much much easier.




I'm pretty sure that's how it will end up working. Gamma World is using the same model: you get commons, uncommons and rares.

I think it works for the new Gamma World because of the gonzo, non-serious approach ("Oh no, I don't have the Atomic Nosering card... big deal"). For D&D? It seems odd and I have no interest in it.

I imagine that this is probably a Hasbro idea, going from the relative strength of WOTC's brands (MtG is the most profitable, so make everything like that). I actually hope nobody buys the D&D cards just so that D&D gets confirmed as "non-collectible territory" forever after.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Aug 20, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> I actually hope nobody buys the D&D cards just so that D&D gets confirmed as "non-collectible territory" forever after.




/polishes credit card

Sorry, dude. =P

Rodney Thompson compared the cards to the drama deck in TORG. I could buy that in D&D, no problems. As a player can't predict their effects, I don't see how they're unbalancing. And as they're on the playerside, I'm easy to let my players buy into them. It's their money, and right now I'm trusting WotC that these fortunes aren't going to break my game. 

Some people just hate collectible stuff. Sure, you can look upon these as the thin end of a wedge, but there are people out there - like me - who quite like where that wedge is headed. So long as D&D remains modular, i.e. clip what you like into the base unit - I don't see why people should be so sad.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 20, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> I actually hope nobody buys the D&D cards just so that D&D gets confirmed as "non-collectible territory" forever after.



D&D is supposed to be non-collectible?

<peers around at shelf after shelf of books, boxed sets and minis>

WHY DID NO ONE SEND ME THE MEMO?


----------



## Wicht (Aug 20, 2010)

Scribble said:


> The fortune decks (if they ARE like the twitter buffs)  aren't designed to be known ahead of time. You're not supposed to / don't need to  put together a deck of awesome buffs. You just open the card and whatever random card happens to be drawn- that's what you get.




Which doesn't negate my point that I would rather buy a full deck once as opposed to booster packs often.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Aug 20, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The success of these elements will determine their impact on 5E.




Which is why I for one will be hoping they tank.  Hard.

For goodness sake, you want something random to happen in your game?  Make it up!

Next they'll be selling card packs of things your character would say if injured, or for what the weather will be that day.

I play TTRPGs in part because all I really need to play is some paper, a pencil and some dice.  Everything else is up here <taps temple with one finger>.

So no--no cards, collectible or otherwise, for me.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Aug 20, 2010)

I think I'd like to see half random with half sets. Because after the 3e Minis deal, I got to hate randomization. Because I once bought ten sets trying to get some Kobolds that I wanted for a scenario but didn't get a single one.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 20, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> Next they'll be selling card packs of things your character would say if injured, or for what the weather will be that day.




Actually, weather cards would be brilliant. Make up a deck for a given area, based on climate and terrain, and draw to see what conditions are like? With effects on the battlefield from rain, fog, snow, et cetera? I would go for that.

Of course, WotC would probably have all kinds of OMG IT'S MAGIC weather effects--it's not a thunderstorm, it's a lightningblast thunderbladewarstorm!--which would turn me right the hell off it again. But the core concept is quite interesting.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 20, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> I think it works for the new Gamma World because of the gonzo, non-serious approach ("Oh no, I don't have the Atomic Nosering card... big deal"). For D&D? It seems odd and I have no interest in it.






			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> Also like the Gamma World cards, they aren’t designed to build an optimized deck to get a more powerful character. they are designed to be random and add chaos to the game.




Seems the cards are meant to add chaos, i.e. a non-serious (or gonzo, one might say) element to a game of D&D. Might seem odd for the flavor of some D&D games, but could fit in quite well in others.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 20, 2010)

Ehhh, not interested in "collectible rules elements" really.

Also, I'm not interested in bringing a deck of cards to the table just so I can spend ten minutes trying to find it when I want to use it. 

Cards don't sound like a great piece to add to my D&D game, personally. I used to bring a box of index cards with cool magic items on them to games, but that was in 1e, and it's been a long time since then... there must be a reason why I stopped.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2010)

I think these will probably go over really well at the in store games.  Encounters and game nights and things...

People will be there at the store, and the packs will probably be cheap enough that people will just buy them.  

Good for WoTC for making yet another thing that will probably help out the stores. 



I think in my own case, I'll probably slot them into my "Ooooh Dice!" category.  

I doubt I'll collect them with any regularity, but if I'm at the store buying stuff, and I see them sitting on the counter, and they're a decent price... They'll be tossed into the purchase, cause... "Oooh shiny!"


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> Which is why I for one will be hoping they tank. Hard.
> 
> For goodness sake, you want something random to happen in your game? Make it up!
> 
> ...




It's this kind of thinking that makes Hasbro shareholders cry. 

Roleplaying games are primarily driven by the imagination of the players. This cannot be sold so the D&D brand needs to move in a direction that does generate sales even if that means moving farther away from TTRPGs and closer to CCGs. 

When the bottom line of a brand comes first, the substance and character of that brand come in a distant second.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 20, 2010)

One thing that I am curious about is why the collectible card thing so soon after pulling back on the miniatures thing? That would suggest that it wasn't the randomized, micro-transaction* aspect of the miniatures that was problematic (though maybe they weren't "micro" enough -- I know I would have spent a lot more minis if I could have dropped 2 or 3 bucks for a box with just a couple in it, but I'm weird like that). Obviously, WotC sees value in getting folks to buy the same stuff over and over again. So why the switch to cards?

Relatedly, will counters replace minis. The Monster box seems to suggest it will. I could easily see randomized monster token packs, too.

* OooH! Evil thought: What if DDI went micro-transaction instead of subscription? So instead of playing $5 a month for all the character builder or compendium data, you paid $5 to add, say, Martial Power 2 to your character builder/compendium data. Hmmm...


----------



## WHW4 (Aug 20, 2010)

I'm sorry to post a gut reaction, as I haven't yet read the whole thread, but if I played in a game where some of these weird "gamey" elements were included I would have to ask the DM just what the hell game I was playing.

"Ok, I move my mini 6 squares, roll my dice, attack that orc. Now I grab a HERO card, then move my mini past go; do I get 200 gp this time? Ah crap his mini touched mine, Sorry(tm)!"

I mean I've seen where some elements get mixed in and it's fun, but a card or playing a card totally breaks me out of the game; why? I don't know, it's just a format that completely throws me. I don't get this when I add tokens or anything. Maybe because it's already an established "tradition" of the hobby that I adapted to as I gamed.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 20, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> Which is why I for one will be hoping they tank. Hard.
> 
> For goodness sake, you want something random to happen in your game? Make it up!




Ok, let me quote my friend, upon rolling a natural 100 "DM's Choice" on any number of random item/effect tables: 

"If I wanted to choose the result, _I wouldn't have rolled on the damn table!_"

Seriously, you are hoping they will tank because they present an option that other players want? Some people like Wands of Wonder. Some people like random item tables. 

Others don't. WotC seems to be working hard to support both groups, with the new DM's kit including both the treasure parcel system and random item tables. Is it really worth complaining about someone else being provided an option that enhances their game? Especially in the form of an entirely independant product that you can completely ignore if desired??


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 20, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> It's this kind of thinking that makes Hasbro shareholders cry.
> 
> Roleplaying games are primarily driven by the imagination of the players. This cannot be sold so the D&D brand needs to move in a direction that does generate sales even if that means moving farther away from TTRPGs and closer to CCGs.
> 
> When the bottom line of a brand comes first, the substance and character of that brand come in a distant second.




Wait a second. You believe that RPGs are "primarily driven by the imagination of the players". That including something to generate random effects goes against the "substance and character of the brand", which is that you should just "Make it up!"

And, just to confirm, I assume this also applies to _every random chart and table_ in, well, pretty much every edition of the game? You know, the ones for generating everything from items to towns to monster encounters to PC's _height and weight_? 

All of that, clearly, not part of the substance of D&D. They clearly all work against the underlying principle of driving the game based on imagination alone. 

Or were you perfectly ok with that, and only find this new way to generate random effects bad because WotC did it, and anything they do is clearly evil, missing the point of the game, and all about making money and turning the game into a CCG?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 20, 2010)

What I really find fantastic here is that the same people complaining that WotC providing mechanical ways to generate random effects means they are missing out on the point that the game is all about "imagination" are, I'm pretty sure, the _same exact people_ who - when 4E cut back on craft skills and mechanical ways to represent background elements, in favor of representing those elements entirely through pure roleplaying - considered that an unforgiveable offense as well.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 20, 2010)

Reynard said:


> One thing that I am curious about is why the collectible card thing so soon after pulling back on the miniatures thing?




Because, like my wife's Partylite candle collection, you can only buy so many candles/minis before you have "enough" and the business model becomes unsustainable. Many candle consultants found this out the hard way. Not everyone feels like they got enough random minis, but enough apparently did for WotC to change the model.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2010)

Reynard said:


> One thing that I am curious about is why the collectible card thing so soon after pulling back on the miniatures thing? That would suggest that it wasn't the randomized, micro-transaction* aspect of the miniatures that was problematic (though maybe they weren't "micro" enough -- I know I would have spent a lot more minis if I could have dropped 2 or 3 bucks for a box with just a couple in it, but I'm weird like that). Obviously, WotC sees value in getting folks to buy the same stuff over and over again. So why the switch to cards?
> 
> Relatedly, will counters replace minis. The Monster box seems to suggest it will. I could easily see randomized monster token packs, too.




Again it's the how they're intended to be used by the purchaser aspect.

Randomized minis for the RPG was annoying because we need specific minis to match the scene we've built.

Notice the switch to tokens? They can actually give us non random tokens to represent the monsters without it being too costly.

Notice how the player power cards aren't random?  Again having to buy random cards to represent non random elements of the game would be annoying at best.

These cards are designed to be random. The fact that they are random boosters is part of the very reason you're buying them. They're not designed to represent a non random element.  You don't NEED specific cards to put them to use- You use whatever you get, the luck of the draw.

WoTC gets to feed off of those people who enjoy "randomness" and seeing what they get this time... While not screwing over those that just want to play the game by making the things that aren't random random.

Well played, in my opinion, if you can get past the fear.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 20, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> It's this kind of thinking that makes Hasbro shareholders cry.
> 
> Roleplaying games are primarily driven by the imagination of the players. This cannot be sold so the D&D brand needs to move in a direction that does generate sales even if that means moving farther away from TTRPGs and closer to CCGs.
> 
> When the bottom line of a brand comes first, the substance and character of that brand come in a distant second.




Yeah, it's a fine line though. If it turns into Corporate: The Whoring, people might actually stop buying it. No brand is essentially evergreen. It is possible to kill the goose what lays golden eggs.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Aug 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Seriously, you are hoping they will tank because they present an option that other players want?




Well, not exactly.  I don't want them to fail because they present an option that other players want.  That would be an odd position to have.

Honestly, I think that if people want to play a TTRPG with cards instead of dice, or both or whatever, then they should be able to do that.  Hell, if someone want to create an RPG with a tennis mechanic, where you have to play a set to determine initiative, who am I to complain?  But there are games out there that incorporate all sorts of things like cards, etc. that aren't D&D--why can't people just play those, instead of changing a game that doesn't include those things?

So, no, I don't want them to fail because people like them--I think people should have things that they like.  And its not that I want collectible card games in general to be unsuccessful.  I just want these particular cards to be unsuccessful in the hope that it would deter WotC from adding more and more fiddly collectible add-on features to D&D while they hold the reins.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> What I really find fantastic here is that the same people complaining that WotC providing mechanical ways to generate random effects means they are missing out on the point that the game is all about "imagination" are, I'm pretty sure, the _same exact people_ who - when 4E cut back on craft skills and mechanical ways to represent background elements, in favor of representing those elements entirely through pure roleplaying - considered that an unforgiveable offense as well.



Personally, I don't have a problem with cards as a mechanism for randomness.

That said, I'm not sure I'd go for this particular version if it was for 3E.

But I really find the above quote typical of the failure to comprehend the differences in play style.  Because it absolutely fails to comprehend the distinction between the "role play" side of things and the "game" side of things as seen by someone who gains enjoyment from the simulation perspective.


----------



## Stormtower (Aug 20, 2010)

I really enjoy running 4E, after initially being only lukewarm to it (in '07 during the leadup to launch).  After several years running it, I am a 4E CONvert (meaning I run 4E at conventions because I love D&D and want it to survive) and crowned my 4E experience by getting to run this year's D&D Championship -- Epic level 4E PCs versus Orcus -- at GenCon.

There is no whining in D&D (at least, that is MY houserule).  So those who defend putting collectible cards in D&D, listen carefully to the lack of whine in my post.  

Wizards of the Coast, know that I enjoy & support 4E.  But know that you have now gone where I, as a consumer, will not follow.  I'll still run 4E and take a long look at Essentials, as well as supporting the RPGA as a convention DM, but I'm not buying these randomized collectible cards.  Don't care if players bring the cards to the table, I won't object to con players using them, etc... but I'm a completist usually (at least 1 of every mini since Harbinger, all 4E hardbacks, huge 3.5 & PFRPG collection) and there's no way I'm buying these, ever.

Love the game, hate the marketing strat.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> But there are games out there that incorporate all sorts of things like cards, etc. that aren't D&D--why can't people just play those, instead of changing a game that doesn't include those things?




Cuz they like D&D, and think it's fun- but also think it would be more fun if X feature was a part of it.

D&D has a long history of stuff that's cool being added to it because people liked D&D and also wanted more stuff to be a part of it.

I mean before 3e there were games that let you play a Dwarven Wizard, why couldn't people go and play those instead of giving Dwarves in D&D the ability to be a wizard?

Hey for that matter, why do we need to add these stupid plastic polyhedrons to the game... We already had Chits!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Wait a second. You believe that RPGs are "primarily driven by the imagination of the players". That including something to generate random effects goes against the "substance and character of the brand", which is that you should just "Make it up!"
> 
> And, just to confirm, I assume this also applies to _every random chart and table_ in, well, pretty much every edition of the game? You know, the ones for generating everything from items to towns to monster encounters to PC's _height and weight_?
> 
> ...




You misunderstand. The "random" element has nothing to do with it. Random stuff has been a part of the game since day one so I don't know where you are getting the idea that I think everything needs to be created from whole cloth. 

The action in a TTRPG takes place in an imagined space shared by the participants. If you disagree on this point there is little need to discuss the matter any farther. 

Every element that gets driven primariily by a game component rather than coming from the players drives the game a bit closer to something other than a TTRPG. Dice, minis, counters, cards, etc. can all contribute to this departure in one way or another. 

Just look at the history of debates revolving around excessive dice rolling for everything. That's just DICE!! The discussions about too much roll playing still take place every day. 

Traditional TTRPG products just don't produce the kind of revenue stream Hasbro needs from D&D so D&D needs to become whatever it needs to be to produce that revenue. It is a quite logical and sane approach from a corporate viewpoint and Hasbro (or WOTC) isn't doing anything wrong in merely offering these products. 

Telling us the game remains the same isn't evil either, it just makes them look stupid.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 20, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> So, the appropriate comparison here is DDM rather than M:tG?
> 
> *shrug* No particular interest here. I don't think it's a sign of D&D going to the dogs or anything, but it doesn't appeal to me.






Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The only way these cards will be able to be compared to MtG or any other CCG is if we end up with Fortunes that are Common, Uncommon, Rare, and Mythic Rare (or some other rarity designation). Without rarity each card is equal and the collectibility factor stays even, making finding whole sets for those that don't like the random thing much much easier.




The comparison to Magic or DDM isn't perfect, but yeah, I think DDM is a better comparison than Magic.

Scribble has laid it out pretty well in several posts above.  The cards WILL have rarity (although not necessarily the same rarity scheme as Magic or even DDM), but their use in play is different than Magic cards or even DDM miniatures.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Traditional TTRPG products just don't produce the kind of revenue stream Hasbro needs from D&D so D&D needs to become whatever it needs to be to produce that revenue. It is a quite logical and sane approach from a corporate viewpoint and Hasbro (or WOTC) isn't doing anything wrong in merely offering these products.




So you've sat in on the board meetings or something then? 

Couldn't it also be they thought this would be a neat new product people might like? (Especially since the twitter buffs seem to be popular.)


(It just always seems whenever someone dislikes a particular game element they tend to determine it's Hasbro forcing WoTC to put out stuff to make more money...  Instead of WoTC just making a particular game element for fans of other types of products then they like.)


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 20, 2010)

BryonD said:


> But I really find the above quote typical of the failure to comprehend the differences in play style. Because it absolutely fails to comprehend the distinction between the "role play" side of things and the "game" side of things as seen by someone who gains enjoyment from the simulation perspective.




Well no, I don't think you quite understand. I'm not only someone who gets that it can be nice to have mechanical support for role play elements, I tend towards that preference myself! 

My issue wasn't that it is an unreasonable style of game play. It isn't even that these Fortune Cards should be immune to criticism. (I'm not bothered by the CCG element, but can see how others wouldn't like it.)

My issue was that it did seem somewhat hypocritical to claim that WotC doesn't get that the game is all about "imagination", when the game has _always_ had plenty of mechanics available as tools for the GM to prevent it from being a purely narrative game. And, in fact, that some of the same people have also criticized WotC for movements _towards_ that 'pure narrative' style of play. 

It wasn't directed at you, certainly - I don't imagine that all people who share one opinion share all opinions. As you mentioned, you have objections to cards as a method of randomness, whether or not you'd go ahead and use them yourself. You certainly haven't suggested that any element of randomness in the game is somewhat against the core tenets of D&D, and simply more proof that WotC doesn't understand the principles of the game they produce.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 20, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> You misunderstand. The "random" element has nothing to do with it. Random stuff has been a part of the game since day one so I don't know where you are getting the idea that I think everything needs to be created from whole cloth.




Based on:
A) The post you responded to, which said that if you need something random in your game, you should just make it up; and
B) "Roleplaying games are primarily driven by the imagination of the players."



ExploderWizard said:


> The action in a TTRPG takes place in an imagined space shared by the participants. If you disagree on this point there is little need to discuss the matter any farther.




I'm with you so far.



ExploderWizard said:


> Every element that gets driven primariily by a game component rather than coming from the players drives the game a bit closer to something other than a TTRPG. Dice, minis, counters, cards, etc. can all contribute to this departure in one way or another.




Sure. 

But one element doesn't do so more than any other. 

My point is this: For decades, people have been glad to roll on random tables. PCs will gladly poke at mutated pools of chaos and see what mutations they get. They will trigger Wands of Wonder. DMs will use random charts to determine treasure, towns, encounters, etc. 

Not everyone, of course. But it has been a fundamental part of the game since the start. 

Now, this takes _no more away from the players_ than rolling some dice on a table in the DMG. It is not "moving farther away from TTRPGs". Using a card mechanic instead of a dice mechanic doesn't make it more like a CCG, any more than the use of dice makes it like Backgammon or other 'dice games', any more than using a random dice roller online makes it into a video game. 

If I've got my character sheet on a laptop while I play D&D, it doesn't mean I'm no longer playing a TTRPG. It means I'm using an electronic tool to assist me. 

And in the exact same way, using Fortune Cards doesn't mean I'm playing a CCG, it just means I'm using cards as a tool for my game. 

What are the cards being used to do? To generate random elements, just like plenty of tables in the DMG always have. That seems in line with the "substance and character" of D&D, despite your very specific accusations to the contrary.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 20, 2010)

As M:tG is one of the most popular and profitable games of all time, I fail to see how making D&D a little more like M:tG is in any way bad.


----------



## Tortoise (Aug 20, 2010)

The more this thread grows, the more it seems that a lot of people already think they know what these cards do and have made a judgment based on that fore-knowledge.

Come on folks, don't just gripe about it, let the rest of us in on what you know to be in these cards!

Meanwhile . . .

Can someone from WoTC please step in and clarify exactly what these are? Preferably with a few examples.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 20, 2010)

"twitter buff"

I've seen this term a few times, and have googled, but still can't quite figure it out.  What does it mean?  
Thanks!


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> "twitter buff"
> 
> I've seen this term a few times, and have googled, but still can't quite figure it out.  What does it mean?
> Thanks!




If you follow the WoTC_DnD twitter feed on Wednesdays you'll see stuff like this:



			
				Twitter said:
			
		

> #dndenc After being in the tomb, the fresh air is invigorating - PCs gain 2 temporary hit points at the beginning of each of their turns




The idea from what I know (I don't play in encounters) is that players can utilize the most recent Tweet at points in the adventure. 

They pop up all day on Wednesdays, adding an element of random to the encounters games.

They confer small bonuses here and there.


----------



## occam (Aug 20, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> "twitter buff"
> 
> I've seen this term a few times, and have googled, but still can't quite figure it out.  What does it mean?
> Thanks!




During D&D Encounters sessions, WotC will send out tweets from its Twitter account that add little things to the encounter that don't exist in the printed materials: a small time-limited bonus for characters who stand on particular terrain features, additional elements that can be manipulated in the encounter, etc.


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 20, 2010)

I wonder if the random card form factor isn't in part a bit of anti-piracy? The (presumably) nicely made cards they publish are likely to be better quality (or cheaper to get) than home-made printouts of pirated scans -- and since the packs are random, any would-be scanners will have to go to some effort to get 'em all. And cards probably aren't something that'll be on DDI. 

Too bad they'll never tell. 

I wonder how 4e-specific they'll be. Can I use them for Pathfinder/3.xe? Can I use them for Savage Worlds/GURPS/M&M?

Also:



Echohawk said:


> D&D is supposed to be non-collectible?
> 
> <peers around at shelf after shelf of books, boxed sets and minis>
> 
> WHY DID NO ONE SEND ME THE MEMO?




I was going to, but I seemed to have misplaced my copy. I think it's somewhere over in those boxes upon boxes of, uh, D&D books, boxed sets, and minis. 

Doh!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 21, 2010)

I don't think I'm ever going to partake of any D&D element that involves a randomized collectability angle to it. 

It puts a rancid taste in my mouth, because I remember the CCG's I picked up in high school, and spending cash over and over again in the faint hopes of getting what I actually wanted out of the game, while those who just _spent more than me_ or who were simply _luckier than me_ got to lord their kewl cards all over my poor, unlucky face.

That's not any kind of "fun" I ever want to relive. 

I don't really mind that they exist -- those who want them can have them, whatever. They probably won't be in use at my table. Same with the twitter updates, really. I *would* mind if the game came to revolve around them in any capacity (even a mild one). This is part of the reason I didn't pick up the old minis line.

Honestly, it's the randomization more than the collectability that aggravates me. Combined, they're antagonistic to my fun. Collectability alone is a little annoying, but not a game-stopper (especially with access to something like the Compendium, where the rules are actually all collected). Randomization without having to spend money on it is, in fact, a lot of fun (I'm not against decks and things per se). 

I'm not going to give WotC $10 for the _chance_ to be awesome, though. 

I'd just as soon use that $10 to get me something I _know_ will make me happy. Like saving it up a bit to get a new videogame, or to play a month of an MMO, or to go see a movie with my date, or to get a board game, or to get a deck of regular cards that I can play _hundreds of different games with_.

I don't mind that they exist as an ancillary part of the game. I don't get the appeal, but I also don't get the appeal of tactical grid-based combat, so whatever. 

But I will not buy them, if they maintain a randomized, collectible element.

I might buy them if they just have a "collectible" element. Like, "this deck is available for a limited time, and then will not be sold." A little annoying, but I could be persuaded.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 21, 2010)

Aren't they basically going to be like the Wizards_DnD tweets for Encounters?



> Something one of the halfling guards said while you were blindfolded gives you an idea. 1/session gain a +2 bonus to 1 skill check.






> During the forced march to the halfling village the foliage releases an antitoxin that confers resist poison 3 for the session.






> After being in the tomb the fresh air is invigorating - PCs gain 2 temporary hit points at the beginning of each of their turns.




Now, these are geared towards the Encounters sessions, but I am assuming they will be more generic for general play.  Bascially, these are minor "per session" or short term bumps that can add some RP and make things a bit more interesting.

EDIT:  Ninja'd by Scribble!  Dangit!


----------



## Nork (Aug 21, 2010)

I don't like randomized collectible products.

They feel like they are predatory and exploitive products, similar to gambling.  They scratch a psychological itch in the human makeup that takes a repugnant person to attempt to profit from.

The sea of unwanted common magic cards or boxes full of common D&D miniatures that people somehow end up owning, yet do not want, is damning testament to this in my opinion.

Overall, I've got a pretty dim view of randomized collectibles.


----------



## Subtlepanic (Aug 21, 2010)

Nork said:


> They scratch a psychological itch in the human makeup that takes a repugnant person to attempt to profit from.




Hey, it's not like they're selling crack. I'm not living in some faeces-stained tenement apartment, masturbating in a pile of unwanted DDMs, slowly jacking up Magic cards into my rectum. ;-)

These guys aren't cackling demons sitting around a cauldron, plotting how to rip off fanboys, they're just guys trying to make some money from their product so they can strengthen it. They more money they make, the stronger the hobby gets, right?

Of course, we could go back to trading black-and-white print rulebooks with photocopied paper counters. That's better for everyone, right?

/sighs

=D


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 21, 2010)

Nork said:


> The sea of unwanted common magic cards or boxes full of common D&D miniatures that people somehow end up owning, yet do not want, is damning testament to this in my opinion.



IME pawning off common DDMs is easier than common MtGCs


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 21, 2010)

Wow. People actually sit around _while playing a session _and constantly check for twitter feeds? 

Is the content of the game session generated by those who are actually playing so boring that people have to tune in and out to check twitter? 

I suppose it's a good thing I haven't checked out encounters then. What does it say about your game when you design content for it delivered exclusively through a medium utilized by those who are obviously already bored enough with it to tweet during play. 

Kind of sad really.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 21, 2010)

Subtlepanic said:


> Hey, it's not like they're selling crack. I'm not living in some faeces-stained tenement apartment, masturbating in a pile of unwanted DDMs, slowly jacking up Magic cards into my rectum. ;-)
> 
> These guys aren't cackling demons sitting around a cauldron, plotting how to rip off fanboys, they're just guys trying to make some money from their product so they can strengthen it. They more money they make, the stronger the hobby gets, right?
> 
> ...




I fail to see how the financial success (or indeed failure) of any particular company equates to the strength of the hobby.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 21, 2010)

I dunno - I just honestly don't get it.  I don't know why you'd sell randomized boosters of something that's purportedly not collectible, and I don't see the benefit to a collectible deck for D&D, as opposed to a static one.  I don't understand why I'd want several random assortments, why I'd need a lot of cards, or anything of that nature.  I'm happy to give WotC my money for great products, but *I *want to get some benefit from these idiosyncratic business decisions, too.

I can see fortune cards, even though they're not my cup of tea.  But the "booster" aspect puzzles me.

I mean, who's the customer?  DMs?  Players?  What's the benefit I'd get out of a collection, other than scratching that "collectible" itch?  D&D Minis had a collectible game of their own - and I understand at least why they'd be collectible and randomized.  This, I don't see a benefit to.

Also, for the record, I don't get the "CCG" hyperbole.  WotC's made products I don't want to buy in the past, and they will in the future.  It's not the end of the world, and I don't think there's any reason to believe it's the first step down a slippery slope towards a collectible RPG.

-O


----------



## Subtlepanic (Aug 21, 2010)

Nagol said:


> I fail to see how the financial success (or indeed failure) of any particular company equates to the strength of the hobby.




Unequivocal brand leader in niche hobby reaps financial rewards = more, better, new stuff = new players = immortality


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Wow. People actually sit around _while playing a session _and constantly check for twitter feeds?




No, I am pretty sure that is not the intended effect.  And I don't know if anyone that is doing this.  The twitter feeds come out all the time, and they are mostly duplicated.  In the encounters game I am playing, the DM prints out a few in advance and randomly gives them to players.



ExploderWizard said:


> Is the content of the game session generated by those who are actually playing so boring that people have to tune in and out to check twitter?




Come on now....  You know better than that.  You've been around gaming and D&D longer than that.



ExploderWizard said:


> I suppose it's a good thing I haven't checked out encounters then. What does it say about your game when you design content for it delivered exclusively through a medium utilized by those who are obviously already bored enough with it to tweet during play.



The tweets are a nifty way to utilize a pop culture device to add to the game. What is wrong with that?  Social networking is here now and it's a great way to have "wired" players feel involved.   Sheesh, should we break out the stone knives and bear skins because that's what worked for us back in the stone age?  Don't get me wrong, I am not sure if this kind of outreach here to stay in it's present form, but that's another non D&D related topic.  For now, WoTC is using the full resources of the internet to help their product.  It is happening in auto sales, health and wellness, office management and many other industries.  Why should TTRPGs be relegated to the 1970's?


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 21, 2010)

First of all, I'd need to see exactly what these things are before passing judgement.

If they are random table generators, no problem.  I'd pay money for a book of random tables, and I'd do the same if the table is presented in card format.

I don't understand how randomness in the product helps, though.  

I hope it doesn't add to character effectiveness or resources.

What I hope they are - 

A "coded" deck of cards that changes the encounter.  You pull one every round or so.  The codes are things like "Dungeon", "Wilderness", "Feywild", etc.

A fog moves over the battlefield.  Another random encounter is generated.  An angel comes to watch the battle.  The magical energy being flung around causes the plant life to animate.


We'll see how they work.  Only then will I be able to make a decision.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 21, 2010)

Subtlepanic said:


> Of course, we could go back to trading black-and-white print rulebooks with photocopied paper counters. That's better for everyone, right?




The only thing "wrong" with this form of distribution is that no one is getting rich off it, which probably makes for better games anyway.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Wow. People actually sit around _while playing a session _and constantly check for twitter feeds?
> 
> Is the content of the game session generated by those who are actually playing so boring that people have to tune in and out to check twitter?
> 
> ...




No one ever checks their email or cell phone during your sessions?  No one ever takes a smoke break?  You do nothing but deeply immersive gaming hour after hour with everyone equally engaged every minute of the time?

No, didn't think so.

Someone taking 15 seconds out of the game to look at a twitter feed on their Iphone is not in any way a commentary on the quality of the DM.



Reynard said:


> The only thing "wrong" with this form of distribution is that no one is getting rich off it, which probably makes for better games anyway.




Meh, speak for yourself.  I LIKE having pretty rpg books.  One of the best things, IMO, of the past ten or so years in RPG's is the massive increase in production quality.

Now if they'd just start writing decent indexes and hiring proof readers, we'd be in heaven.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Meh, speak for yourself.  I LIKE having pretty rpg books.  One of the best things, IMO, of the past ten or so years in RPG's is the massive increase in production quality.




I like "pretty" too. I just think that those that produce the best RPG materials are those that love them, not those motivated by corporate level profits. This can happen within any company and at any level, of course. Just because you are CEO doesn't mean you don't love gaming, and just because you're a freelancer doesn't mean you have even played, let alone love, the game you are working on.

But, chances are, if someone put a game together on their own time, with their own resources, they love that game and it'll show in the material, whether or not it's "pretty".


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 21, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> In the encounters game I am playing, the DM prints out a few in advance and randomly gives them to players.




No problem there. That isn't any different than grabbing any other content from any source pre-game and bringing it along.


----------



## Jor-El (Aug 21, 2010)

I think they're fooling themselves if they think people are going to buy a couple of random boosters of these cards, and then NOT open them until they're sitting around the table ready to play. 

Most are going to open these immediately to see what they got! 

Except those of us that won't buy randomized, collectible accessories. 

Sell these as a full collection, non-randomized...sure, I'd bite. They sound fun. Just like the Paizo Game Mastery decks for critical hits, fumbles, and plot twists. I don't like the "meta-game" of "gotta catch 'em all".


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't mind that they exist as an ancillary part of the game. I don't get the appeal, but I also don't get the appeal of tactical grid-based combat, so whatever.




To each their own man. I doubt they'll ever be such a part of my game that I'll feel the "need" to have a certain card that I need to keep collecting to get.

For me, it's just a fun what WILL I get this time? thing. 

It's like when I first opened the monster manual and read about the wondrous monsters... What will the next one do?

That's why it doesn't bug me thast they're random... I don't NEED them to be un random, it's the randomness of them that appeals to me.

(Unlike the randomness of the minis that DIDN'T appeal to me, because I actually needed specific monsters.)




Nork said:


> They feel like they are predatory and exploitive products, similar to gambling.  They scratch a psychological itch in the human makeup that takes a repugnant person to attempt to profit from.




A tad melodramatic don't you think?

(I'm just unhappy they don't contain a stick of stale bubblegum.)



ExploderWizard said:


> Is the content of the game session generated by those who are actually playing so boring that people have to tune in and out to check twitter?




It's kind of interesting- to people who aren't a part of the social media thing (mostly older generations) tweeting and texting while in the company of others is seen as rude, and beinf exclusive... Whereas studies have shown that to those that are involved, the feeling is more of an inclusive one..  IE- We're all sitting around playing D&D together, not just with the group at our table.

If it's not your thing- that's cool- but don't assume someone is bored just because they're tweeting or texting. They might be super excited and just sharing that excitement with others that can't be there.



Obryn said:


> I dunno - I just honestly don't get it.  I don't know why you'd sell randomized boosters of something that's purportedly not collectible, and I don't see the benefit to a collectible deck for D&D, as opposed to a static one.  I don't understand why I'd want several random assortments, why I'd need a lot of cards, or anything of that nature.  I'm happy to give WotC my money for great products, but *I *want to get some benefit from these idiosyncratic business decisions, too.




Well yeah- I mean part of it is obviously to make money. That's what companies do. 

But it's also because it's not a major part of the game, and not designed to coordinate with specific effects. It seems to be designed as just a fun add on, so they're randomized to create the effect I talked about to Kamikaze. Excitement of the unknown.

I think the target market is people like me.  Impulsive. If I'm at the store buying stuff, I'll probably toss in a pack or two- just for fun. I'll pull them out at the table in the same fashion. Randomly just to add a little bit of fun.

It's kind of like just tossing a few chips down on random numbers on the roulette table.

Some people like that- others like to play more controlled games.


----------



## jbear (Aug 21, 2010)

Sorry Scribble but it won't let me XP you until I spread more XP around.

Stick of Stale Bubble gum! Thanks for the laugh and the wave of nostalgia!!!!


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2010)

jbear said:


> Sorry Scribble but it won't let me XP you until I spread more XP around.
> 
> Stick of Stale Bubble gum! Thanks for the laugh and the wave of nostalgia!!!!




I can still remember that bubble gum smell those cards always picked up. 


Hey here's a thought that will probably get people all hoppin mad-

In essentials they're introducing an optional rule for magic items that sorts them into: Common, Uncommon, and Rare... And gives DMs a way to randomly generate magic item treasure finds...

So... Can we see in the future: 

"Generating a treasure hoard has never been easier! All the DM has to do is open a pack of magic item cards and draw forth the result!" 

OH NOEEEEESSSSS!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2010)

> "Generating a treasure hoard has never been easier! All the DM has to do is open a pack of magic item cards and draw forth the result!"




That would make me unhappy. I'd probably not be one to hand out random magic items after that, which would put a big dint in some of the fun of playing D&D

Compare:

"Generating encounters has never been easier! All the DM has to do is open a pack of Monster Cards and draw forth the result!"

"Making a character has never been easier! All the player has to do is open a pack of Character Cards and draw forth the result!"

"Selecting an adventure has never been easier! All the player has to do is open a pack of Adventure Cards and draw forth the result!"

"Fighting a battle has never been easier! All the player has to do is open a pack of Combat Cards and draw forth the result!"

The game practically plays itself! Draw a character, draw an adventure, draw a monster, draw a combat card, repeat until you are out of adventure cards! 

Here's the main problem with all of those, for me: they remove my ability to select what I want for my table. 

A D&D game that doesn't involve real choice between known quantities might as well be Progress Quest. 

Now, I do think randomizing things is a lot of fun, and I wouldn't mind those as a supplement to the game, but if I had to spend $10 to get the mere possibility of an awesome weapon/monster/character/adventure/combat/whatever, I wouldn't be very interested. I'd just play Diablo, where at least my lack of control is accompanied by bright lights and cool sounds. 

I mean, you could probably play a game of D&D entirely revolving around drawing cards from different collectible decks. I'm not sure such a game would really be much of a D&D game to me, though it might be fun in a totally different way.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 22, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That would make me unhappy. I'd probably not be one to hand out random magic items after that, which would put a big dint in some of the fun of playing D&D
> 
> Compare:




HAH! I told you it would start a lot of panick 


Shrug. As long as it wasn't made an integral part of the game, I wouldn't care if they started making it. 

Might not be my cup of tea (I've never really dug random magic items to begin with) but if someone finds it fun- awesome.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2010)

> HAH! I told you it would start a lot of panick




I'd call "it's not what I want to play" a pretty reasonable form of panic.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 22, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd call "it's not what I want to play" a pretty reasonable form of panic.




Didn't you get the memo? Any reservations or hints of dislike for the latest offerings for anything means that the sky is falling and you should seek shelter to avoid having your tinfoil hat crushed.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 22, 2010)

Honestly my take on this is that WotC has had many interesting ideas recently that have really brought me in. They're entitled to one big fail after that.

Seriously, I hope these collectible products fail and that we don't see any more of them, ever. There are other things they're coming out with (Ravenloft boardgame for one) that I'd much rather have succeed. 

However, if WotC would like my suggestion, take a look at Dominion and Thunderstone... there's an idea I could get behind. Expansions that include everything? Sounds good to me!

--Steve


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 22, 2010)

Honestly, I think this is a way to drive sales to the HOBBY stores AND combating piracy at the same time.

WOTC seems intent on giving customers reasons to go to the FLGS and this randomized booster idea ties into this...

For example, how much you want to bet that WOTC will tie this into Encounters somehow? So that when people play encounters at a store they also buy a random booster from said store a la FNM.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 22, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd call "it's not what I want to play" a pretty reasonable form of panic.






ExploderWizard said:


> Didn't you get the memo? Any reservations or hints of dislike for the latest offerings for anything means that the sky is falling and you should seek shelter to avoid having your tinfoil hat crushed.




Relax... it was a joke!


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Aug 22, 2010)

Not sure about the randomized aspect of this, but they sound alot like the cards from the Purple Index Card thread over in the 4E houserule sections of EnWorld.

I have used them, and my players absolutely love them.  I have to give up slightly more narrative control (at most, once a night per player, but my players don't always use their cards), but it seems to be a fair tradeoff, from their reactions to them.  

I'll take a look at them, and maybe add a few I like to my deck of about 80 index cards I already made.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 22, 2010)

Yeah, I won't say the sky is falling until players are encouraged to buy randomized packs of power cards for their characters, with the rare cards being more powerful.

That?  That'd be abusive, and not at all what I want in a game.  That would be an RPG as a CCG, where players are encouraged to spend probably-absurd amounts of money to get the character they want, and where a DM loses all say in what their players have access to.

This?  This is just a product I won't buy, and which puzzles me with its arbirary and unhelpful randomness.

-O


----------



## Vartan (Aug 22, 2010)

Given how little I know about Fortune Cards I'm cautiously optimistic and will probably pick up a pack. I'm always looking for ways to make things a little more interesting for my players. I'm fairly familiar with Torg's Drama Deck mechanic (to which Rodney Thompson compares Fortune Cards). The cards give players more opportunities to impact the game via narrative and/or mechanical twists that range from from taking an extra action to introducing a romantic subplot. I didn't really care much for Torg but the Drama Deck was really fun to play with and it's usually the first thing my friends bring up when we talk about the game. I personally like these sort of game concepts because it can lead to more player "buy in" and because, as a DM, I've learned to really enjoy being surprised by my players. 

Here's a hypothetical example: 

At the beginning of a session I take out some Fortune Cards and ask each player to draw one which they can use during that evening's game. One of those cards says "you throw your weapon/spell at e beam in the ceiling and the roof caves in, ending the battle and allowing the party to escape safely." 

In the usual course of business I don't want my players doing this at their discretion: if they try it once at an appropriate moment then I might let it slide, probably requiring a roll, but if they tried to do it every time they got into a jam then I would either find myself saying "no" a lot or my world map would be dotted with an incredulous string of open-air monuments to my player's cold dice. Heck, plenty of players would never even think to attempt something like this in the first place. 

But a card (or any other mechanic) which describes such an action gives the players both idea to do so as well as a mechanical "license" to do so. No matter when you use it, bringing a roof down will make almost certainly make your game more interesting. If the player uses it at the right time then it can save their butt and give them that special feeling one only gets when they perform large scale demolitions in the service of heroic action; if they use it at the wrong time then it could generate drama and spur some character development; and no matter when they use it I get more grist for my DM mill in the form of recurring villains ("We searched the rubble and couldn't find the body") and various in-world consequences that come with knocking down a building. Three cheers for the "I make the roof cave in" card, it just made the game a little more fun. 

Now that I think about it, if there isn't an "I make the roof cave in" Fortune Card then I might just make my own. But that's a discussion for another day.



Nork said:


> I don't like randomized collectible products.
> 
> They feel like they are predatory and exploitive products, similar to gambling.  They scratch a psychological itch in the human makeup that takes a repugnant person to attempt to profit from.
> 
> ...




Sounds like someone bought too many Homelands boosters back in '96 

All kidding aside, this hyperbole is purely irrational and (to those who play or design CCGs and the like) at least a bit insulting. MtG players know what they're doing when they buy those cards and the people who made them aren't "repugnant." I can't even begin to fathom why you would write something so absurd. Gamers are smart people and ENWorld is full of gamers, so I don't think it's asking too much to suggest that we should all try a little harder to elevate the tone of our discussions.


----------



## jbear (Aug 22, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Now, I do think randomizing things is a lot of fun, and I wouldn't mind those as a supplement to the game, but if I had to spend $10 to get the mere possibility of an awesome weapon/monster/character/adventure/combat/whatever, I wouldn't be very interested. I'd just play Diablo, where at least my lack of control is accompanied by bright lights and cool sounds.



I'm going to play Diablo and D&D!!!!

Have you seen what they are doing with Diablo 3!!!???!!!

It's going to be AMAAAAZING!

sorry, back on topic... blush*


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 22, 2010)

SteveC said:


> Seriously, I hope these collectible products fail and that we don't see any more of them, ever. There are other things they're coming out with (Ravenloft boardgame for one) that I'd much rather have succeed.




Now I've never quite understood this attitude.  If I don't particularly care for something, but it is obvious that others do . . . I don't have any desires for it to fail.  I just don't purchase it myself.  Why such negativity towards something that others find fun, just because you don't?


----------



## Imaro (Aug 22, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Now I've never quite understood this attitude. If I don't particularly care for something, but it is obvious that others do . . . I don't have any desires for it to fail. I just don't purchase it myself. Why such negativity towards something that others find fun, just because you don't?




I can see it from a "limited resources" perspective as well as a "supplanting what I like" perspective as well. 

In other words the money, resources, manpower, etc. they spend on something I don't like means less goes towards what I do like. However if it fails those resources could be allocated back to something I want.

As to the "supplanting what I like" perspective... if something does well they may decide to supplant one/some/all of the things I enjoy with this new thing I do not.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 22, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I can see it from a "limited resources" perspective as well as a "supplanting what I like" perspective as well.
> 
> In other words the money, resources, manpower, etc. they spend on something I don't like means less goes towards what I do like. However if it fails those resources could be allocated back to something I want.
> 
> As to the "supplanting what I like" perspective... if something does well they may decide to supplant one/some/all of the things I enjoy with this new thing I do not.





I can understand I hope what I enjoy succeeds- But hoping something else someone else enjoys fails seems kind of... Wrong for some reason.


----------



## Pseudonym (Aug 22, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Didn't you get the memo? Any reservations or hints of dislike for the latest offerings for anything means that the sky is falling and you should seek shelter to avoid having your tinfoil hat crushed.




I find an aircraft grade aluminium alloy preferable for my headwear needs. It holds up better in the event of a sky falling mishap.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 22, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I can understand I hope what I enjoy succeeds- But hoping something else someone else enjoys fails seems kind of... Wrong for some reason.




Eh, but it often boils down to someone else's enjoyment stepping on your own (either directly or indirectly) when it comes to a single company with limited resources to allocate.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 22, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I like "pretty" too. I just think that those that produce the best RPG materials are those that love them, not those motivated by corporate level profits. This can happen within any company and at any level, of course. Just because you are CEO doesn't mean you don't love gaming, and just because you're a freelancer doesn't mean you have even played, let alone love, the game you are working on.
> 
> But, chances are, if someone put a game together on their own time, with their own resources, they love that game and it'll show in the material, whether or not it's "pretty".




There are _tons_ of indy games that were made in the 90's.  They weren't pretty, but they were made by people who really an truly loved their game and their hobby.  People spent a long time crafting these tabletop games for others to enjoy, regardless of the fact tht they were just one small group of people making it.

And you know what happened?

_They sucked._  Turns out enthusiasm isn't a replacement for skill.  You can't replace quality with love.  People didn't play Vampire: the Masqerade because the editing and book format was terrible, they played it because it was fun to play.

In the splat avalanche at the birth of the OGL, probably _hundreds_ of fan made submissions hit every website and FLGS.  Most of them were made by people who really and honestly thought their product was amazingly good.  They were made out of love.  And they were also _terrible_.

In both of these examples, the byproducts died.  They didn't make money, so now they aren't being made anymore.  I really hope for the sake of the hobby as a whole that your desire for it _does not_ come true.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 22, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Eh, but it often boils down to someone else's enjoyment stepping on your own (either directly or indirectly) when it comes to a single company with limited resources to allocate.




Still just seems too negative to me.


----------



## MoxieFu (Aug 23, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> I find an aircraft grade aluminium alloy preferable for my headwear needs. It holds up better in the event of a sky falling mishap.




And if it keeps out those Alien thought control rays the federal government is beaming out...BONUS!


----------



## Reynard (Aug 23, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> There are tons of indy games that were made in the 90's.  They weren't pretty, but they were made by people who really an truly loved their game and their hobby.  People spent a long time crafting these tabletop games for others to enjoy, regardless of the fact tht they were just one small group of people making it.
> 
> And you know what happened?
> 
> ...




90% of everything is crap. Yes, we know. However, you failed to either disprove my theory - after all, wasn't Vampire a labor of love? - or prove the opposite - during the same period there was plenty of "cash in" crap produced by "professional" companies, not least TSR.

In addition to merely stating the obvious, your position also ignores a basic truth: not everything that succeeds is good, and not everything that fails I'd crap.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 23, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Eh, but it often boils down to someone else's enjoyment stepping on your own (either directly or indirectly) when it comes to a single company with limited resources to allocate.




In anthropology this idea is called the theory of "limited good" . . . that good things happening to others takes away from the finite pool of good things, so I get less.  While there's an element of truth in it, it doesn't hold up in most circumstances.

You're assuming that if WotC decided not to make the product you like, they'd make one you'd like with those resources instead.  They might, they might not.  They might make another product you don't like, or nothing at all.  And with things rarely being as simple as Product X substituting for Product Y, a product made that you don't care for might increase the bottom line to a point that the company can afford to make more products, maybe some you will like.  And conversely, if they don't make a good product that doesn't happen to suit your tastes, they may loose money on making the thing you want.  Or not.

Should WotC redirect the resources put towards Magic: The Gathering into making D&D bigger and better?  If you don't play Magic and love D&D, this might sound like a great idea.  But Magic is such a popular and high-selling product, chances are its loss could possibly kill the company, including D&D.

And, besides, as Scribble has pointed out, rooting for a product to fail just because you don't care for it . . . just seems mean-spirited to me.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 23, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The success of these elements will determine their impact on 5E.



I don't think they'll have much effect on me, but you never know.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 23, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The only thing "wrong" with this form of distribution is that no one is getting rich off it, which probably makes for better games anyway.



This is a quite a leap. You said yourself 90% of everything is crap, and that includes the amateur stuff. Yet with this quote you're saying it would be *better *if everything was produced by amateurs.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 23, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Now if they'd just start writing decent indexes and hiring proof readers, we'd be in heaven.



I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

For anyone at WotC who is reading, if you're looking to hire someone to do those jobs, I'm coming up on available.  Years of academia need to eventually serve me in good stead _somehow_.



Imaro said:


> I can see it from a "limited resources" perspective as well as a "supplanting what I like" perspective as well.
> 
> In other words the money, resources, manpower, etc. they spend on something I don't like means less goes towards what I do like. However if it fails those resources could be allocated back to something I want.
> 
> As to the "supplanting what I like" perspective... if something does well they may decide to supplant one/some/all of the things I enjoy with this new thing I do not.



In my experience (and understanding of human cognition), that requires way too much reasoning to be responsible for the instant vitriol.

It's nothing that complicated, though subsequent rationalization lets people pretend it is.  It's really Cola Wars: I drink Coke and I am smart, therefore stupid people drink Pepsi, and if someone is serving Pepsi, I'm going to whine or take my ball and go home.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 23, 2010)

I always chuckle when I see terms like "amateur" and the like being thrown around, re: TTRPGs.

Why? Because the single qualification a person needs in order to become a "game designer" (etc., etc.) is to be. . . a gamer. That's it. No more, no less.

Therefore. . .

"Professional" game designers? Bwahahahahahaha. Nice one.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 23, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> I always chuckle when I see terms like "amateur" and the like being thrown around, re: TTRPGs.
> 
> Why? Because the single qualification a person needs in order to become a "game designer" (etc., etc.) is to be. . . a gamer. That's it. No more, no less.
> 
> ...




Really?  So all of the highly successful products from Paizo, WotC, and others were made by folks hired simply because they were gamers?  No other qualifications?

Nice one. LOL.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 23, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Really?  So all of the highly successful products from Paizo, WotC, and others were made by folks hired simply because they were gamers?  No other qualifications?
> 
> Nice one. LOL.



That's cute, but actually refute it properly, and I'll listen. Please, do so! 


edit: Anecdotal, sure, but I've seen at least as much solid game design from random internet posters as I have from *snort* "industry" people.


----------



## Jolly_Blackburn (Aug 23, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Really?  So all of the highly successful products from Paizo, WotC, and others were made by folks hired simply because they were gamers?  No other qualifications?
> 
> Nice one. LOL.




It's amazing how many engineering and legal degrees there are among designers in the gaming industry (a lot of Anthropologist types like myself as well).

Just in our small company we have three engineers (one being an engineer/lawyer). Not that those are qualifications to be a game designer. I find good ones come from all walks and life and backgrounds. 

But yeah, JUST being a gamer who loves games doesn't = good game designer.


----------



## Jolly_Blackburn (Aug 23, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> That's cute, but actually refute it properly, and I'll listen. Please, do so!
> 
> 
> edit: Anecdotal, sure, but I've seen at least as much solid game design from random internet posters as I have from *snort* "industry" people.




True that. While there's a LOT of crap out there some of the best rpg material I've ever encountered have been found on the internet and various RPG blogs.


----------



## Jolly_Blackburn (Aug 23, 2010)

Vartan said:


> I didn't really care much for Torg but the Drama Deck was really fun to play with and it's usually the first thing my friends bring up when we talk about the game.




Same here. Those cards generated a LOT of excitement among my friends back in the day and it's still the one thing that comes up about Torg when the name is mentioned.

If the Fortune Cards can take that fun and build on it and take it further I'm very interested and seeing how it pans out.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 23, 2010)

Reynard said:


> 90% of everything is crap. Yes, we know. However, you failed to either disprove my theory - after all, wasn't Vampire a labor of love? - or prove the opposite - during the same period there was plenty of "cash in" crap produced by "professional" companies, not least TSR.
> 
> In addition to merely stating the obvious, your position also ignores a basic truth: not everything that succeeds is good, and not everything that fails I'd crap.




So what, exactly, is your point?  Your theory is that "good games come from people who love making them."  Well, duh?  _Most_ games do, good or bad.  Gaming isn't exactly a strong concrete industry.  You more or less have to enjoy the work to get into it.  People don't make TTRPGs for the health benefits, you know.

Or are you trying to somehow hint that the makers of 3e or 4e don't love their game?  Please.  The people who made 4e love it and honestly and truly think it's the best game they could've made.

Just because _you_ don't like it doesn't change anything.

WotC isn't made by big rich 1920's fatcats who drink brandy and laugh at the plight of the lower classes.  They're gamers who have different tastes from yours, _god forbid_.


----------



## Nork (Aug 23, 2010)

Vartan said:


> Sounds like someone bought too many Homelands boosters back in '96
> 
> All kidding aside, this hyperbole is purely irrational and (to those who play or design CCGs and the like) at least a bit insulting. MtG players know what they're doing when they buy those cards and the people who made them aren't "repugnant." I can't even begin to fathom why you would write something so absurd. Gamers are smart people and ENWorld is full of gamers, so I don't think it's asking too much to suggest that we should all try a little harder to elevate the tone of our discussions.




Then why won't Wizards sell magic cards as a non-random living card game, and as random booster packs if people want to draft?

I mean seriously.  I'm dead curious as to why offering a full playing set of cards for each expansion is such a terrible idea for a product.  Especially considering the number of people who sell such sets and singles online.

The answer is painfully obvious as to why it is a "bad" product for Wizards.  Randomized cards let them sell more product than they'd sell if it wasn't randomized.  Hence they make money off jerking their customers around on purpose, and using reinforcement schedules to keep them coming back for more.  Anyone who sat through psych 101 ought to know exactly what they are up to.  Anyone who sat through their ethics class ought to know what they are doing is dubious at best.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 23, 2010)

Because you lose the "collectability" aspect of the game.

Right now, M:TG attracts a very broad audience....those that like the collectability, those that actually like the game etc. Losing the "collectability" appeal would lose one part of the audience and not gain them anything.

As an aside, if M:TG was non-randomized why do people assume it would cost te same? If anything, the cards would HAVE to be more expensive meaning that even commons which go for for quarters and dimes would now have to go for loonies and toonies.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 23, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> I always chuckle when I see terms like "amateur" and the like being thrown around, re: TTRPGs.
> 
> Why? Because the single qualification a person needs in order to become a "game designer" (etc., etc.) is to be. . . a gamer. That's it. No more, no less.
> 
> ...



Clearly, in this context we're using the term "amateur" to mean "does not make a living doing this thing." This discussion was introduced to the thread by referencing money. So that's what it's about in this context.

If you work as a full-time gamer designer (ie, that's where your paycheque comes from), then you're a professional. If not, you're an amateur. If you want to get precise, someone who makes some money from game design but it's not their primary source of income would probably be called semi-professional.

Clear now?


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Aug 23, 2010)

Reynard said:


> But, chances are, if someone put a game together on their own time, with their own resources, they love that game and it'll show in the material, whether or not it's "pretty".




... and whether or not it's "good".

Your argument reads like a highly romanticized version of Real World (TM). 

Did you never read one of those small press games, painstakingly put together by their authors, edited by his girlfriend and proof-read by his sister? There usually is a whole lot of love in there, but not necessarily quality.

Yes, there are a lot of professionally produced games showing a distinct lack of love.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 23, 2010)

Nork said:


> The answer is painfully obvious as to why it is a "bad" product for Wizards. Randomized cards let them sell more product than they'd sell if it wasn't randomized. Hence they make money off jerking their customers around on purpose, and using reinforcement schedules to keep them coming back for more. Anyone who sat through psych 101 ought to know exactly what they are up to. Anyone who sat through their ethics class ought to know what they are doing is dubious at best.




The product is optional - I don't think there is much room for an argument that it is _ethically _wrong. As to whether other forms of distribution would be better for the audience... possibly. 

Assuming those forms still make enough money for the game to continue. 

People complained about WotC's randomized miniature packs. So WotC _listened_, and produced non-random PC packs and partially-visible monster packs. And... I don't know how well they did, but apparently not well enough to continue, since I think they are back to random minis with the latest set, right?

Is it a practice designed to make money? Yes. But to then make the leap in logic that doing so is _ethically wrong_... that WotC is required to provide a good product to customers without the goal of making a profit... I don't really think that follows.


----------



## demetri0us (Aug 23, 2010)

I actually like collectable products. 

An example is miniatures. When WotC went from random to partial fixed, I was like "ok, so I can pick one I actually like." but quickly I was wishing for that rush of the unknown. I don't play MtG at all, though, I bet I would like busting packs of those too. I am happy they are returning to a full blind product for miniatures. And, since I RPG at least once a week, I can totally see me buying an inexpensive pack of cards to add a little more randomness to my table. I'm all for that.

You know, baseball cards were like that for a really long time before WotC adopted it.

Somebody above mentioned that Meric's Law might apply to cards too. I think it's pretty obvious that there is quite a bit of truth to that.

The important point I think is that you don't need them. If you don't like them, much like the miniatures, you don't need them to play. That's what is so very great about D&D or any RPG... you can spend almost nothing and enjoy the game for years (or even decades), however, I love the fact that I can spend my entertainment dollar to buy new and useful products.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 23, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> The product is optional - I don't think there is much room for an argument that it is _ethically _wrong.




Actually, there is. I won't go into detail on operant conditioning, but the key idea here is that a random reinforcement schedule--where you get rewarded for performing an activity, but the number of times you have to perform it to get the reward is unpredictable--strongly conditions the subject to perform the activity, much more strongly than a predictable schedule.

In essence, it's a way to engineer an addictive behavior pattern*, bypassing the customer's rational thought process. And it works. Not on everybody, probably not even a majority of people, but it works on enough people that you can make big money off them. It's why gambling is illegal in so many places; it's part of why some people get obsessed with MMORPGs.

And M:tG definitely follows the pattern. There's a reason it earned the nickname "cardboard crack" back in the day.

Is it unethical to design your product in a way that's likely to trigger an addictive response? Is it unethical to use other techniques to bypass rational customer decision-making (e.g., 90% of TV commercials)? That's subject to debate. But it's certainly not a question to be dismissed out of hand.

[size=-2]*Note that I say "addictive behavior pattern" rather than "addiction." I'm not going to argue the definition of addiction here. The point is that you see the same behaviors that you do with chemical dependency.[/size]


----------



## True_Blue (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm not sure how this product would be any deterrent to pirating it.  If someone wanted to use these cards in a game, they could just look up on the internet the contents of each one, and put it within an Excel spreadsheet, then assign a number to each one.  When they would normally "pick a card", instead they would just roll the appropriate die.

Sure the person doesn't have fancy looking cards, but overall its the effect they probably care about, not the flashiness of the cards.  Also, I'm not sure everyone wants to keep track of more cards.

I will also echo the sentiment that having this as random just doesn't make too much sense to me.  The only benefit I can see from it that someone mentioned is that you could buy a pack and then crack it open at the table, which is pretty cool to a certain degree.  I'm not sure how often I'd really do that though.  Also, having a bunch of these extra cards (doubles, triples, etc), is not desirable in the least.  At least with miniatures you usually can find someone who needs an "army" of them.  I would much rather just be able to buy a whole set at a time.

I will try these out for sure, in some form.  It looks like a cool idea overall.  I would just rather they aren't random, but not everything is going to be exactly how I want it.  I'll work with it and still manage to enjoy the mechanic, even with the downsides.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 23, 2010)

Thinking about it some.
Yes DDM would have been the better comparission in my first post than MtG.

But another aspect on the cards I could like IF they came in the follow:

1. Random Treasure Pack
2. Random Character Pack
3. Random Encounter Pack
4. Random Adventure Pack

This could be tied in with the online tools as well.
1. Random Treasure - The DM could use it as a simple item generator.  Tie in would be the item is on the DDI Character Builder to choose from.  They could be seperated in various level oriented cards, maybe 5 (1-10); 3 (11-20); 2 (21+) for a split in a 10 pack.
2. Random Character Pack - Again your latest DDI Character Builder could give these characters as bonuses to your monthly update.  Whereas the card would be an essentially a stat block for use, the actual DDI file would give you the true meat of him/her.
3&4. Random Encounter/Adventure Pack - Don't they have an Adventure Tool now?  I don't keep up with it much.  But it could easily follow the same line of having it all ready and built for you on the tools they provide during a monthly update.

I can actually see a lot of potential for good from this, as well as the negative that is possible.  If it is kept as a seperate accessory product with bonus goodies on the Online Tools side, it could be a good thing.

I do like the idea of the climate weather cards for a bit of randomness.

While all of us know of tools that do all the above for us now, WotC does have an opportunity to capitalize on this and I don't blame them.  I know I would.
As was mentioned earlier, making it more edition neutral on the cards (game neutral would be even better for the PF/C&C crowd) would go a long way towards bringing a few of the old customers back in for a few stabs at them.  Honestly even though I've yet to buy a 4E book, it doesn't mean I wouldn't pick up an Edition Neutral set like that.  Just the same way the old Gazeteers still work just fine in any edition.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> /snip
> "Making a character has never been easier! All the player has to do is open a pack of Character Cards and draw forth the result!"
> /snip




Now, imagine that as a DM tool for NPC's.  While I'd hate this as a chargen method, as a supplement for allowing me to drop in interesting NPC's, completely statted up, on the fly, into my game?  Love it to pieces.

Rogues Gallery Collectible Cards.  I'd like it.

Or, imagine a boxed set for classes instead of the XXXX Powers book.  In the boxed set you get two minis of each class, one male and one female of iconic races.  You get character sheets specific to each class.  You get a pack of power cards for each class.  And you get a short, softcover book a la the 4ee books detailing the flavour of each new class.

I'd see that as a much better way of presenting new classes than the traditional splat book.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 24, 2010)

> Rogues Gallery Collectible Cards. I'd like it.
> 
> Or, imagine a boxed set for classes instead of the XXXX Powers book. In the boxed set you get two minis of each class, one male and one female of iconic races. You get character sheets specific to each class. You get a pack of power cards for each class. And you get a short, softcover book a la the 4ee books detailing the flavour of each new class.




I like all of these, with the caveat that when you make what I actually get when I pay money to get it random, value evaporates for me.

I am not going to pay $10 on a slot-pull to maybe make my games more awesome.

I will absolutely spend $20 on something I know will make my game more awesome. 

There's an economic thought exercise about loss-aversion that comes into play at about this point, usually.

I've got nothing really against cards at the table per se, and actually kind of like the idea (I am absolutely the Essentials target audience ). What kills me is the Collectible Randomized angle to it. It's such a sodding mercenary business practice, based around such a catastrophically cynical model of the consumer, who doesn't purchase things for any reason except the _thrill of the purchase itself_. I don't exactly oppose WotC trying to make a dime off of it (they're a company, after all, they should probably do whatever makes them money), but it is not the kind of tool I'll be supporting in any respect.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 24, 2010)

Since I was at the panel where they announced this, I'll try to provide some information for context:

-There will be 80 cards total in the set(or there is, tentatively)
-They will have rarities(common, uncommon, rare)
-They are intended to be opened at the table(and I got the implication that each player was intended to have his own stack of the cards) because that way you have no idea what is in your own deck until the random events actually happens.
-The cards are supposed to be random events that happen during a battle.  They didn't say what any of the cards in the set actually do, but things like someone tripping over something or a fire starting were possible examples
-The reason they would have rarities is to allow some of the more powerful effects to happen less often.  So, you might go through your card deck during a single session, but have only 1 or 2 really strange things happen(the rares)
-The cards are not intended to be collected(they repeated this about 10 times)
-On the other hand, if you happen to collect them all because you buy a booster every week for your session, there will be rules on how to make decks out of them.  This is to make sure a player doesn't show up with a deck that contains 10 copies of the most beneficial card for his or her character.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I like all of these, with the caveat that when you make what I actually get when I pay money to get it random, value evaporates for me.
> 
> I am not going to pay $10 on a slot-pull to maybe make my games more awesome.
> 
> ...




But, would you be be comfortable with three dollars if it was random?  I can't see eight or ten cards being ten bucks, but, IIRC, a magic booster is like three bucks isn't it?  I could totally see paying three bucks for a random pack of NPC's.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 24, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> -The cards are not intended to be collected(they repeated this about 10 times)
> -On the other hand, if you happen to collect them all because you buy a booster every week for your session, there will be rules on how to make decks out of them.  This is to make sure a player doesn't show up with a deck that contains 10 copies of the most beneficial card for his or her character.



You see, this is where I just plain don't get it.  I see little reason why WotC should be the one randomizing _anything _for me.  As the DM, I should have say in my randomization.  I also don't particularly love the idea of my players spending so much money on these cards that they put together decks made from booster cards.  It's not CCG territory, yet, but when players are constructing decks made of randomized cards, it's walking too close to the periphery for my tastes.

I have no problem paying WotC money for great stuff.  I do every month, with DDI and all the 4e goodness. 

But the justifications from the seminar just kinda ring hollow.  There are plenty of non-randomized ways to accomplish everything above - like putting out a simple deck of cards (or two decks, for that matter) that the group can draw from.  I don't think the utility of this product is increased in the least by selling them in randomized boosters; it's just costing me and my players more money.

If something is costing me more, I expect to get more out of it.

I want WotC to do well, and I want to buy great products.  But I'll be giving this one a pass and hoping they come out with something I'll like better next time.  It won't be the first or last time I'll skip one of WotC's products, though, so it's nothing new there!

-O


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 24, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Since I was at the panel where they announced this, I'll try to provide some information for context:
> 
> -There will be 80 cards total in the set(or there is, tentatively)
> -They will have rarities(common, uncommon, rare)
> ...



Thank you for putting this in context, it does differentiate it enough from MtG (something which I actually enjoy) for me. As a DM, it would keep me more on my toes as the players introduce situations into combat.

However, paying money to have WotC randomize the cards for me just seems a little silly. It would make more sense just to sell all the cards in a pack and have the DM make a deck or decks from these (to suit the style of the encounter). It's hard to judge without knowing what the effects will be. At the moment though, I'm with Obryn in that I'd buy this for a premium amount to get the set, rather than have it portioned out randomly and pay the same amount but in an uncertain number of installments.

I see this as an interesting aspect of the game that could be used adapted to other systems if it is done well.

Actually, I just had a thought. What's stopping someone from grabbing the spoiler, creating a table from it and having people roll d100 (or d1000) to determine what happens. That way, you don't have to pay for the cards but the random element of "how good/bad is my roll" is still there. The DM could come up with numerous tables tailored to different styles of combats/encounters.

Is drawing a card more satisfying than rolling dice?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Obryn (Aug 24, 2010)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Is drawing a card more satisfying than rolling dice?



I actually think it is, yeah.  There are a few reasons for this...

(1) Looking up a table and interpreting dice rolls add an extra step to something which is hopefully quick & easy.  The more items on the list, the tougher it gets.  This is compared to a card, where all the rules are right there, front and center.

(2) You can put a card out there on the table as a reminder of what's happening.

(3) Thematic and evocative artwork are a plus.

(4) If you go through a deck, you can guarantee that every card will come up once.  If you roll on a table, it just gets more likely as time goes on.

(5) People love "feelies."  Well, not everyone - but lots of people do.  Cards are like novel little toys at the table, and they just feel different than having just another die to roll.

With that said, I think it's a perfectly fine idea for people who don't want to make a major investment.  I don't think it would be as smooth or as fun, though.  If I want to add something like this to my games, I think cards are the best format for it.  I don't, mind you - and I probably wouldn't even if the cards weren't randomized.  But still, I do think they are a different experience from dice.

-O


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

I dunno, I could see this adding something to the table.

Player decides to break out something that he doesn't really know will help and draws a card.  Breaks open the package and uses the first one that comes out.  I can see that being kinda fun.  Certainly attention getting.

And, Obryn - feelies are totally a good thing at the table.  Having something in your hand, the viceral feeling of throwing down a card at a tension point in the game is something that could certainly appeal.


----------



## Tortoise (Aug 24, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Since I was at the panel where they announced this, I'll try to provide some information for context:
> 
> -There will be 80 cards total in the set(or there is, tentatively)
> -They will have rarities(common, uncommon, rare)
> ...




Thanks for posting this info.
Based on that I can see some pros and cons, however I would still like some example cards to get a better feel for where this is going.

Personally I would prefer something like this in a deck so you can buy all of the cards at once. From an FLGS standpoint, especially one participating in the Encounters program, I could see the appeal of it the way it is being released - sell a pack to the players so they can use them that evening in the Encounter session.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

Tortoise said:


> Personally I would prefer something like this in a deck so you can buy all of the cards at once. From an FLGS standpoint, especially one participating in the Encounters program, I could see the appeal of it the way it is being released - sell a pack to the players so they can use them that evening in the Encounter session.




I'm kind of the opposite on this.

There's already so much stuff in gaming that when it hits the shelves it's a "Well that seems cool... But do I REALLY want to spend 30 bux on it?" moment...

This gives me a little bit of gaming coolness that I don't really have to break the bank on.

I can buy a pack every now and then and still get the fun.


----------



## Tortoise (Aug 24, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I'm kind of the opposite on this.
> 
> There's already so much stuff in gaming that when it hits the shelves it's a "Well that seems cool... But do I REALLY want to spend 30 bux on it?" moment...
> 
> ...





I should have clarified that I was thinking of it from a DM perspective.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

Tortoise said:


> I should have clarified that I was thinking of it from a DM perspective.




Well- me too.  (But also from a general I like buying game stuff perspective.)


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 24, 2010)

Obryn said:


> You see, this is where I just plain don't get it. I see little reason why WotC should be the one randomizing _anything _for me. As the DM, I should have say in my randomization. I also don't particularly love the idea of my players spending so much money on these cards that they put together decks made from booster cards. It's not CCG territory, yet, but when players are constructing decks made of randomized cards, it's walking too close to the periphery for my tastes.




This came up earlier in the thread. Some DMs want randomness. Some don't. A DM can absolutely replace the 'Wand of Wonder' table with their own list of results. But other DMs just want a table to roll on without having to come up with anything on their own. 

If you want some random events, you can grab a booster to add some flair to the game. If you want control of it, you can just come up with your own table of random events, and tell your players not to get these. 

No randomization is going to be forced on anyone who doesn't want it, but the option is there for those who do. I don't really see the problem with this.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 24, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Since I was at the panel where they announced this, I'll try to provide some information for context:
> 
> -There will be 80 cards total in the set(or there is, tentatively)
> -They will have rarities(common, uncommon, rare)
> ...




Wow. Now that's a scheme. Buy a new deck for every game for every player to make sure you don't know what's in them.

No thanks. Give me one deck I buy once thats always useful and we can do business. To suggest I buy a new deck for each player for every game. Not going to happen.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Aug 24, 2010)

if they are collectable and randomised, im guessing 'some are better than others', which could then mean the person with the deepest pockets gets an advantage?

legal for 'organised' play?

I like adventures decks in SW, as its that sort of game. 
I dont like the PF ones from Paizo, as its not that sort of game?


----------



## sjmiller (Aug 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> No one ever checks their email or cell phone during your sessions?  No one ever takes a smoke break?  You do nothing but deeply immersive gaming hour after hour with everyone equally engaged every minute of the time?
> 
> No, didn't think so.
> 
> Someone taking 15 seconds out of the game to look at a twitter feed on their Iphone is not in any way a commentary on the quality of the DM.



No cell phone or computers are allowed at our gaming table, so checking them is not an issue in our gaming sessions. Smoke breaks happen very rarely, now that our last two smokers have quit smoking. Be that as it may, even if we did such things I know that the DM in our game would not allow some random Twitter feed to have an effect on the game. How am I so certain of this? Simple, I am the DM. What gets added to the game, what has an effect on the game, is decided by me as the DM, not something someone shows me on their cell phone. Sure, it's a cute, fad concept for being "crazy and cool" in the game, but it is not something I would like.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Wow. Now that's a scheme. Buy a new deck for every game for every player to make sure you don't know what's in them.
> 
> No thanks. Give me one deck I buy once thats always useful and we can do business. To suggest I buy a new deck for each player for every game. Not going to happen.




Umm... who suggested that?

They said people can buy them when they feel like it, open it at the table, and have a random element added to the game.  

There are also rules for building a deck just in case you happen to be the type that enjoys buying these cards a lot and wants to continue using your collected cards in a fair way.

You're attributing motives they never pushed forward.

In fact the design seems to almost be counter to what you're suggesting. They're designed in such a way that allows you to buy as many or as little as you want, and still get full use out of the cards.

The only down side is for someone who happens to be the type that has an uncontrollable NEED to collect every card in the set. In which case, WoTC can hardly be held accountable for that person's lack of self control.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 24, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Since I was at the panel where they announced this, I'll try to provide some information for context:
> 
> -There will be 80 cards total in the set(or there is, tentatively)
> -They will have rarities(common, uncommon, rare)
> ...




Wait, what!!! .  So the default is that everyone ( 5 players and 1 DM)  is expected to buy a new pack for every new game session?... I guess from a profit perspective that's even better than collectible... Yeah, I'm gonna pass on this product.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 24, 2010)

Greg K said:


> Per Mike Mearls from an interview
> 
> Fortune Cards
> 
> MM: "As a whole they make the game a little more unpredictable and makes things work out in an interesting new way."




This made me smile.  In 4e design philosophy, I thought too much unpredictability was bad; it made things "swingy".  Now it's a feature. 

FWIW, I've got no issue with the concept.  Just found it a bit ironic.  Game on.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 24, 2010)

The cards sound like a cool product...

... which I'm not particularly interested in. Okay, I might be in for *1* set, but I'm no collector...

... but they make sense from a business perspective. 

TSR wanted to sell you modules, then campaign setting. WotC wants to sell you cards. The more things change...


----------



## Tuft (Aug 24, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Wait, what!!! .  So the default is that everyone ( 5 players and 1 DM)  is expected to buy a new pack for every new game session?... I guess from a profit perspective that's even better than collectible... Yeah, I'm gonna pass on this product.





Well, it _does_ sound inspired by those in-store Magic the Gathering events where you buy a fresh deck of Magic cards for the game night...


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> This made me smile.  In 4e design philosophy, I thought unpredictability was bad; it made things "swingy".  Now it's a feature.
> 
> FWIW, I've got no issue with the concept.  Just found it a bit ironic.  Game on.




I doubt these cards are going to be unpredictable on the level of "save or die."


----------



## Wicht (Aug 24, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Umm... who suggested that?




It is suggested in this quote from Majoru Oakheart: _"-They are intended to be opened at the table(and I got the implication that each player was intended to have his own stack of the cards) because that way you have no idea what is in your own deck until the random events actually happens."_

Each player is intended to have their own stack and they are expected to be opened at the table. This equals each player buys a new pack for each game. I'm not sure how to read that any other way. 

I don't think most tables would allow one player to use a pack, when the others don't. Its the sort of feature that is either everyone uses it or no one uses it. 

Thus, the intention seems clearly that every player buy a new pack for each game. Obviously they don't expect every table to do this - I'm not suggesting its a mandatory part of the game. But those that do choose to use them, this is how, according to Majoru, they are intending them to be used.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 24, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> This made me smile.  In 4e design philosophy, I thought too much unpredictability was bad; it made things "swingy".  Now it's a feature.
> 
> FWIW, I've got no issue with the concept.  Just found it a bit ironic.  Game on.




Do you really not see the difference between "Roll a d20 to see if you survive, nothing you can do could've avoided this" and "The wind is at my back!  My ranged weapon has a bonus to hit!"

Really?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

Wicht said:


> It is suggested in this quote from Majoru Oakheart: _"-They are intended to be opened at the table(and I got the implication that each player was intended to have his own stack of the cards) because that way you have no idea what is in your own deck until the random events actually happens."_
> 
> Each player is intended to have their own stack and they are expected to be opened at the table. This equals each player buys a new pack for each game. I'm not sure how to read that any other way.
> 
> ...





Maybe listen to the Gencon Upcoming Products podcast where they talk about these cards?  (It's towards the end)  You might get a little better perspective on where they seemed to be coming from.

Opening them at the table was a suggestion for how they might be fun to use, as opposed to like the way they're "supposed" to be used or something.

Like it's fun to open a pack and see what you get, as opposed to cards not sealed before use are invalid or something.  

Also since they're random, it prevents you from having to buy a bunch in order to build a deck. 

Would they like you to buy a new pack everyday? Yeah probably, I mean they get money, who doesn't want money.  

And sure maybe some DMs will say all or nothing- but that's on your DM, not the cards. (And lots of DMs make decisions I find kind of odd from my own DM perspective.)

Nothing in the rules of how to use them even suggests that everyone at the table needs to have the cards though from what they said- From how they talked about them, even drawing them if you had some was optional.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 24, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Do you really not see the difference between "Roll a d20 to see if you survive, nothing you can do could've avoided this" and "The wind is at my back!  My ranged weapon has a bonus to hit!"
> 
> Really?




You're THAT offended?  REALLY?!?

It WAS a while a go but I don't recall the "swingy" argument being limited solely to save vs. die.

In any case, I clearly stated I had no issue with the concept of the product (can't really speak to the implmentation at this stage yet), just that I found the sales pitch humorous.

Humorous, as in finding humor within something; NOT "OMG FURTHER PROOF THAT 4E SUCKS".  Would I equate save vs. die to the example you provided?  No, but then that's your example and not one I provided isn't it?  (And while I'm no archery expert I think that depending upon the strength of that wind or gust it might not always deliver a positive effect to a shot but that's just me...)

Try and lighten up and have a little fun.  Sheesh.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 24, 2010)

Scribble said:


> And sure maybe some DMs will say all or nothing- but that's on your DM, not the cards. (And lots of DMs make decisions I find kind of odd from my own DM perspective.)




I find it odd that you would find it odd that some DMs might think it unfair to allow some PCs to get non-standard bonuses and in-game power that they can't get simply because they did not spend the extra, real world money. That would be like a DM saying, "any player giving me $5 gets 10 extra +2 bonuses in the game tonight." Only, in this case, its any player giving WotC extra money gets extra potential benefits in the game and greater say over the course of events. 

Edit: And yes, I understand these are optional. That's not the point. The point is how they are being marketed and the suggested use of them.


----------



## Tortoise (Aug 24, 2010)

The more I think about these things, the more ideas for them occur to me.

These might be very handy in a sandbox play environment. A DM could occasionally have players draw from decks the DM arranged to represent the types of things likely to happen in a given area of the sandbox. Since he or she would have a good idea what region and maybe sub-region of the box the players were headed for, it wouldn't be that hard to tailor the draw deck to match an intended flavor of events.

Now I'm much more interested in seeing what is actually on them. Still would prefer a deck with the set in it and would then be willing to occasionally suppliment with an occasional booster to help pad out the draw decks.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Aug 24, 2010)

After reading all the arguments and speculation in this thread I come to the following conclusion:

This is an interesting product, one that will no doubt find a home in many gaming tables and will probably be incorporated into store events. 
The sky is not falling and I don't believe anyone at WotC would be so foolish as to try to make them mandatory for regular play.

This product is not for me, however, as my gaming budget is extremely limited (I don't even use miniatures)

I fully endorse WotC new strategy of boxes full of feelies (I even put it in my sig), but collectible card boosters just don't have the same cost/benefit ratio for me.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 24, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I find it odd that you would find it odd that some DMs might think it unfair to allow some PCs to get non-standard bonuses and in-game power that they can't get simply because they did not spend the extra, real world money. That would be like a DM saying, "any player giving me $5 gets 10 extra +2 bonuses in the game tonight." Only, in this case, its any player giving WotC extra money gets extra potential benefits in the game and greater say over the course of events.




Are they guaranteed to be benefits? The sense I was getting was that things could happen that were good or bad, and would not necessarily affect the player who opens them. 

If they are simply random buffs that beef up whomever opens the pack, then yeah, you've probably got a point. I am doubtful that is the case, though, and it sounds like you are coming to a number of conclusions based on incomplete information gathered from a distance. 

Maybe some groups will have everyone regularly pick these ups. Maybe some DMs will just snag lots of packs on their own, so they can assemble their own appropriate 'random dungeon events' for specific locations. Maybe some groups will have one every week, or just get one or two and reuse them. 

I suspect there will be many ways these are used, and declaring that the only 'proper' use WotC intends is for every player to buy a new pack every week requires making a _lot _of assumptions. Ones, I would argue, that not only aren't supported by what WotC have said thus far, but may even run directly counter to it.


----------



## demetri0us (Aug 24, 2010)

I DM most of the time. And I know from experience with the pool of players I play with that only about 25% of "my" players will buy these.  I also know that the people I play with will share at the table. So will I. If someone doesn't want to use them whilst everyone else does, well, um, that would be weird, but I'd be cool with that. Whatever.

Likewise, if I went to a game to play (as happens from time to time) and the DM doesn't want to use them. I wouldn't care. 

If there are anything like what I think they'll be. I'd bet I'll buy a pack every time I show up at the FLGS. That's just the kind of thing I'd like. I can tell you I won't necessarily buy one every time I play and open it at the table, but, then I'd bet that will happen every once in a while.

As a DM, I'd also gladly throw out any card I felt was unfair/overpowered or whatever. You know, 'cause you can do that, you know... as a DM. Use what you want, don't use what you don't want. Right?

I don't really see this as any different that the LFR cards that are used at the table. You know, to re-roll an at-will, take 10 on a skill check or add a +1 to a die roll and such. My groups love those. It kind of gives you one more thing to do at the table to participate in the game. I'm all for that. People like to have things to do at the table. Well, that's my experience anyway.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 24, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I suspect there will be many ways these are used, and declaring that the only 'proper' use WotC intends is for every player to buy a new pack every week requires making a _lot _of assumptions. Ones, I would argue, that not only aren't supported by what WotC have said thus far, but may even run directly counter to it.




I don't remember using the word "proper".

I'm also not sure what I am misunderstanding about the intent of the product. They are randomised packs of cards, with some benefits (rares) being better than others. It is "suggested" each player use their own packs. It is also "suggested" the most fun way to use them is to open them up during the game. 

I have no problem with cards being used during a game. I use Paizo's critical hits and fumbles decks and will likely get their plot twist deck at some point as well. I just prefer a single, fully formed deck that you buy once as opposed to small randomized packs you buy new for each game (I think I have said that already though). I suspect these will mostly be used to buy until each group has a full deck of them and then they will just use that one deck for everyone. But I may be wrong and only time will tell for sure. But again. I'm not attacking the product idea. I think its fine. I just think that its being packaged wrong.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 24, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I have no problem with cards being used during a game. I use Paizo's critical hits and fumbles decks and will likely get their plot twist deck at some point as well. I just prefer a single, fully formed deck that you buy once as opposed to small randomized packs you buy new for each game (I think I have said that already though). I suspect these will mostly be used to buy until each group has a full deck of them and then they will just use that one deck for everyone. But I may be wrong and only time will tell for sure. But again. I'm not attacking the product idea. I think its fine. I just think that its being packaged wrong.




Yeah, this is how I pretty much feel too.  I wouldn't mind buying these if I could get a complete deck at once and tailor it for my game... I've done the random ride before with mins and I just can't see myself riding it again for these cards.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 24, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yeah, this is how I pretty much feel too.  I wouldn't mind buying these if I could get a complete deck at once and tailor it for my game... I've done the random ride before with mins and I just can't see myself riding it again for these cards.




I'm sure someone will offer complete sets via e-bay or whatnot so no random buy is required.

I stopped buying DDM cases because I got sick of random and just started buying singles online.  (Although, I am buying one case of the latest set because I like many of the commons and uncommons.  I've ordered the rares and very rares as singles.)


----------



## Imaro (Aug 24, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> I'm sure someone will offer complete sets via e-bay or whatnot so no random buy is required.
> 
> I stopped buying DDM cases because I got sick of random and just started buying singles online. (Although, I am buying one case of the latest set because I like many of the commons and uncommons. I've ordered the rares and very rares as singles.)




The question is... "for how much?"

In the end I'm not going to pay $50-$60 for a rare card to complete my set... when WotC could have easily sold this set (like Paizo does their card sets) for around 10-15 dollars.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 24, 2010)

Imaro said:


> The question is... "for how much?"
> 
> In the end I'm not going to pay $50-$60 for a rare card to complete my set... when WotC could have easily sold this set (like Paizo does their card sets) for around 10-15 dollars.




Sure, but why do you need a complete set? Pick up 2-3 packs, and you've got a deck of cards that would seem to suit your purposes and can be reused as desired. Does the lack of some rarer cards ruin their use for you?

I mean, I get that some people aren't a fan of the collectability and the nature of random packaging. But for those who don't want to get into that element, how much does it actually change to buy a few boosters vs one complete deck from some other set of cards? 

I can see it being more relevant if it was something that actually needed a level of completion. Whoops, didn't buy enough item packs, you can't hand out +1 weapons! 

But this is pretty much just a random series of events. I don't see any level of 'completion' actually _needed_.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 24, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Sure, but why do you need a complete set? Pick up 2-3 packs, and you've got a deck of cards that would seem to suit your purposes and can be reused as desired. Does the lack of some rarer cards ruin their use for you?
> 
> I mean, I get that some people aren't a fan of the collectability and the nature of random packaging. But for those who don't want to get into that element, how much does it actually change to buy a few boosters vs one complete deck from some other set of cards?
> 
> ...




Its not so much a matter of needing all the cards; from my perspective its a matter of budget. Assuming a price of about $5 a pack and 8-10 cards in a booster pack: I can spend $11 and get 51 cards from Paizo, balanced, with each card different and suitable for use in a game, or I can spend $15 and get 24-30 cards from WotC, with chances being good that some of them are duplicates.  

Thinking about the two approaches, this is just another example of why Paizo is currently getting my money. Even when the products are nearly identical, Paizo manages to do it in a way that I find more financially appealing.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 24, 2010)

Imaro said:


> The question is... "for how much?"
> 
> In the end I'm not going to pay $50-$60 for a rare card to complete my set... when WotC could have easily sold this set (like Paizo does their card sets) for around 10-15 dollars.




Oh, I agree - as a consumer, buying random *cards *, IMO, is a stupid idea/model.  However, if you are willing to pay the premium, it's a tolerable setup as long as you buy the ones you want in a non-random fashion.

I'm very glad I never bought a single Magic product.


----------



## Uder (Aug 24, 2010)

n general, it seems you'll get a slight advantage using these, and that to use them as intended every player should buy a new pack each game. I can't fault WotC for the strategy, but it seems like they're trying to find ways to steady their revenue stream - you pay for some new thing every game session, as well as once a month, in order to enjoy the total D&D experience. That's not part of the hobby for me, so yet again WotC moves farther and farther into the rearview mirror.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 25, 2010)

> But, would you be be comfortable with three dollars if it was random? I can't see eight or ten cards being ten bucks, but, IIRC, a magic booster is like three bucks isn't it? I could totally see paying three bucks for a random pack of NPC's.




I would still have a problem with it, yes. Three. Five. Ten. A dollar. Even free, I probably wouldn't take 'em. If you paid me, I might consider it, and then I'd probably shred them. The cynical marketing logic that goes into even conceiving of a product like this rankles me harshly. I get that not everyone is so principled about their friggin' gaming purchases, and I don't think they need to be (not everyone's had the family history with psychological addiction that I've had), but here's the thing: I think how WotC made most of their money (on the "booster pack" concept premiered in magic and used on every eight-year-old with Pokemon) is pretty exploitative, and every time it makes a foray into the game that I've loved for decades, it feels that way to me. The minis felt that way to me, too. Businesses by their very nature are always at least a little exploitative ("Here are some rules for make-believe, the game you've been playing since you were 2. That'll be $90, and $15/month thereafter."), so I don't begrudge them, but I feel confident drawing this line in the sand for myself.

I wouldn't draw it for anyone else, either. If you love the concept, by all means, enjoy and go wild. I would only object to the degree that your fun made my fun less fun, and that's not at risk of happening with these cards any time soon (though we'll see what 5e brings...). I'm stating my personal opposition to it and no more. 

On the other hand, a complete deck in and of itself, like what Paizo is apparently putting out, would absolutely be on my to-buy list (and Paizo's decks have now gone there! They've got a boatload of cross-system compatability!).


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2010)

Meh, I've never been a fan of the "The DM must spend all the money at the table" buying scheme.

This pushes things off onto the players.  Yay!  Something I don't have to buy.  

Heck, is there any reason you couldn't buy one booster and have everyone draw from it?  It's not like you have to buy five or six boosters.

Also, what's the problems with doubles?  Since the generation is random, having a "Sudden wind springs up" card twice doesn't really hurt anything.

I can totally see people not liking this.  And that's fine.  For me, I think it's fun.  It gives power to the players to have concrete effects at the table beyond what their character can do.  I'm all for that.  

SJMiller - I can honestly say that I do not play that way.  Heck, I play online - everyone has to have a computer.  And, I'll guarantee that every one of my players has, from time to time, done a bit of searching or whatnot during the game.  Wouldn't bother me at all to have a player tweet during the game, so long as it wasn't holding anything up.

Tweeting about the game during the game?  Fantastic.


----------



## Jor-El (Aug 25, 2010)

I can't help but feel that, with the introduction of these cards + the Gamma World setting (which will also include a randomized card set) + the Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashadarlon board games...

That we are seeing the beginnings of some testing for the future...


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 25, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think how WotC made most of their money (on the "booster pack" concept premiered in magic and used on every eight-year-old with Pokemon) is pretty exploitative



Give us a break.

We're talking about games that people voluntarily play because they enjoy playing them.

The fact that WotC uses a clever marketing strategy to sell more Magic and Pokemon cards is just that -- a clever marketing strategy.

Find something else to put your energey into, like peace in our time or ending world hunger. Crusading against collectable card games is ludicrous.

*Admin here. Folks shouldn't over-react, please; these aren't slot machines, but neither should we rail at someone if they find collectible card games addictive. Our group used to refer to Magic as "crack" for a reason.    It's fine to discuss, and I think it's an interesting topic, but I don't want us to get to the point where we're yelling at one another about it.  Thanks.  ~ PCat*


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I find it odd that you would find it odd that some DMs might think it unfair to allow some PCs to get non-standard bonuses and in-game power that they can't get simply because they did not spend the extra, real world money. That would be like a DM saying, "any player giving me $5 gets 10 extra +2 bonuses in the game tonight." Only, in this case, its any player giving WotC extra money gets extra potential benefits in the game and greater say over the course of events.
> 
> Edit: And yes, I understand these are optional. That's not the point. The point is how they are being marketed and the suggested use of them.




I guess I just don't see it the same way.

To me this is like someone showing up with a 3pp book and saying "Can I take a feat from this book?"

And me saying sure.

I just don't see the "intended use" you see.

Sure, I think they'd be happy to have everyone buy a pack, but there's nothing in the design that attempts to push you in that direction.

A DM saying everyone buys a pack or we don't use them would in my eyes be akin to "Everyone buys the book or we don't use the feats in it."

I think others have pointed out, but you could just shuffle the same deck and draw a card for anyone who wants to use it.

This is the entire reason I say this design is actually better for your wallet. I can buy into it as much or as little as I want.

Nothing in the rules of the cards (that they spoke of at least) causes me to buy more cards. 

I can buy 1 pack or I can buy 50 packs all based on my own desired level of buy in. 

Contrast this to a book where I have to spend say 30 dollars to get any use out of it.

Sure- both have ups and downs- I just think you're looking at the wrong "downs" for this particular product.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 26, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Now I've never quite understood this attitude.  If I don't particularly care for something, but it is obvious that others do . . . I don't have any desires for it to fail.  I just don't purchase it myself.  Why such negativity towards something that others find fun, just because you don't?



I can definitely understand that, let me explain: I think this idea (random, collectible items for RPGs) is a very bad thing, both for WotC and the industry as a whole, so I hope they don't sell very well, so that WotC decides to do something else. I'm happy to give them my money, but only for products I'm looking for. I hope that it fails because it's not simply something that I don't like, it reflects a change in the hows and whys their products are made that I don't like. If they were to make a Dominion style package, I'd be onboard with it, and likely be a customer.

So I don't want anyone at WotC to lose their jobs over this, but I still really find it objectionable.

Hopefully that makes a little more sense, because I certainly can understand the notion of "if you don't like something just don't buy it..." and that's usually the attitude I take.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 26, 2010)

My impression is that a booster may be busted open and used at some point in the encounter, determined by the DM.  i.e.  

DM: "OK, Joe, you said you had a Fortune Deck, open it, grab a random one and let's see what happens."

And then maybe even use the remaining cards in the same encounter or later in the session.

When it was mentioned that if someone had collected a bunch of cards there would be some rules for building a deck so that the deck owner wouldn't be at an unfair advantage.

DM (at the beginning of the session): "Hey, Joe, you have a fortune deck, right?  Can you break them into Commons, Uncommons, Rares and then shuffle each? I am going to blindly and randomly pull 8 commons, 4 uncommons and 2 rare and that will be our deck for today's session."

This doesn't seem terrible.  I think it might make for some fun during the game and there's nothing in this that is forcing the DM's hand or giving deep-pocket players an edge.

I can even see some players say they don't want to draw, what with the effects being possibly good or bad.  No one HAS to participate.

---------------------------------

EDIT:  When did I stop being a Community Supporter?  No email or reminder that my account was expiring?  

And now I don't have the option to pay for a full year in advance, I have to keep my eye on my paypal account each month for a transaction....  Geez, I really hate the new subscription model... This may be the first time in almost 7 years that I will not renew my Community Supporter Account....


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2010)

> We're talking about games that people voluntarily play because they enjoy playing them.
> 
> The fact that WotC uses a clever marketing strategy to sell more Magic and Pokemon cards is just that -- a clever marketing strategy.




It's true that it's voluntary. So is a slot machine. So is online gaming. So is eating more than you need. So are most drugs (at least initially). 

Being voluntary doesn't mean it's not addictive. Self-control isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's different from a chemical dependency, but the psychology that goes into addiction (independent of the chemical dependency) is pretty well documented. 

Taking advantage of our brain's dopamine triggers for reward-seeking in such a callously opportunistic way as is, in my book, a level of exploitation that I'm not comfortable with. 

The issue of retail psychology is pretty well documented, so the question isn't "does it exist?" The question is: at what point do you draw the line between advertising and "marketing strategy" and manipulating people's minds to make a quick buck?

In my view, randomized reward systems like random booster packs cross that line, for me. For most people, they're probably fairly harmless (not everyone dies playing WoW), though I'm not sure what you as a consumer get from such a business model. I don't know how buying randomized packs instead of buying complete decks makes it any better of a product for the purchaser. I'm not going to tell WotC that they can't (or shouldn't be able to) do it. But I do find it distasteful.

In a similar way, I find something like the KFC Double Down distasteful. But KFC is (and probably should be) free to produce it and sell it. I'd just like to do my little part to create a little zone of sanity around myself where such a thing is not very present. I'd like to have consumers smarter than that. I'd like to have consumers who truly purchase something with the value of that something in mind, rather than consumers who love gambling on a friggin' pack of cards for D&D. But if some people want that thrill, I'm not going to stop them. I won't participate in it, though. And that's completely within the realm of reasonable human action.


----------



## bagger245 (Aug 27, 2010)

So we are buying Monopoly chance cards now?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> So we are buying Monopoly chance cards now?




Essentially, yes.  

KM - I can see your point, but consider this - for the non collector, the randomized element doesn't matter.  The non-collector doesn't care if he or she has the entire collection.  And, it doesn't matter if he or she has doubles either, since drawing the cards during a session is also random.  Having something come up twice during the game is not likely to be game breaking.

Unless it's really wonky, like fairies popping out of nowhere which is cool once, but, kinda weird otherwise.  

For the collector, the randomized element makes his collection more valuable.  A rare care remains rare and thus more valuable.  If everyone gets exactly the same deck, then there is no value in collecting.

About the only person who gets screwed on this deal is the completist who is not interested in the collectable aspect.  Since the decks don't need completion to be used, and, from the looks of it, aren't even intended to be complete at any point in time, I'm not sure if I'm actually all that worried about that consumer.  That consumer is moving beyond what the product is intended for.

This isn't a "Build a Fate Deck for your Game" product.  This is intended, from where I'm standing anyway, as a Monopoly Chance deck (thanks Bagger) for your session.  Does it matter if your Monopoly Chance deck has all the cards?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2010)

> For the collector, the randomized element makes his collection more valuable. A rare care remains rare and thus more valuable. If everyone gets exactly the same deck, then there is no value in collecting.




That collectible element doesn't make the D&D experience at my table even a little bit better. I'd rather WotC sell monster trading cards or something for those collectors (Theoretical Design: On the front, monster artwork. On the back, monster stats. The monsters come from WotC's current DDI pool of monsters, and are a supplemental to MM's and the like. Solos like Dragons and Orcus and such are rarer than underlings like Goblins and Orcs).



> Does it matter if your Monopoly Chance deck has all the cards?




It would, but it's not really the completion that bothers me. It's that selling randomized boosters exploits a pretty destructive cognitive trick for monetary gain, and gives me no added benefit in my D&D games. The cards could be fun. The method with which they are being sold, however, seems pretty vile to me.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 27, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Taking advantage of our brain's dopamine triggers for reward-seeking in such a callously opportunistic way as is, in my book, a level of exploitation that I'm not comfortable with.



To follow that philosophy, you will also need to give up high fructose corn syrup, chocolate, mating, and love.  And those are rough to go without.... largely thanks to those same circuits.  While I'm pretty comfortable with chocolate, mating, and love, I've been trying to give up the high fructose corn syrup, but, man.... they put that stuff in _everything_, including stuff that doesn't even need a sweetener.

In any case, those four are only a handful of the things that rely heavily on the same circuitry and are exploited with no less opportunistic callousness.

We could implicate the same circuitry in everything rewarding about games.  Receiving items, gaining a level, completing a quest or objective.... generally speaking... winning of any kind.  Might have to give up gaming entirely, and certainly sports.

But now I'm getting a little silly.  I suppose there are relatively benign activities that access this circuitry and very exploitative ones.  On the maximally exploitative end, we have tobacco and illicit drugs.  On the minimally exploitative, maybe candy and love.

These cards are more like heroin than Snickers bars?  Seriously?

Frankly, I'd probably stick them somewhere in the middle, roughly adjacent to online gaming, but to each his own.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> /snip
> 
> It would, but it's not really the completion that bothers me. It's that selling randomized boosters exploits a pretty destructive cognitive trick for monetary gain, and gives me no added benefit in my D&D games. The cards could be fun. The method with which they are being sold, however, seems pretty vile to me.




I'm thinking that's a bit strong.  Randomized boosters keep costs down as well - since non-random would mean that I have to buy the whole deck.  Right there, that's a bonus.  Getting players to spend twenty bucks on a deck might be a trick, but, most players will drop a couple of bucks on something like this.

"Vile" is pretty strong language.  But, if you feel that strongly about it, I can totally see why you'd be against it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2010)

> I suppose there are relatively benign activities that access this circuitry and very exploitative ones. On the maximally exploitative end, we have tobacco and illicit drugs. On the minimally exploitative, maybe candy and love.
> 
> These cards are more like heroin than Snickers bars? Seriously?




I get that it'll sit at different places for different people. I'm certainly not arguing that this is like heroin, but I am saying that it seems too exploitative to me for me to be comfortable with it at my tables. I'm saying it's more like horrible fast food, or maybe cigarettes. It is bad for you. It does little for you that can't be done in a better, more constructive way. It is entirely unnecessary and indulgent. It cultivates the most base of human instincts (a little thrill of the unexpected) for the most base of reasons (raw profit, since selling them like that isn't better for the actual games that will be played with them). It plays into a habitual psychological reward system ruthlessly (as gamers, we're probably more inclined to want that thrill of the unexpected, since we play a game where that is one of the basic psychological tools used to encourage play even without the cards -- we're more vulnerable to it). 

And, yes, other things are too. That doesn't mean that the fate deck booster pack _isn't_, just because it isn't one of those things. It's still using the rush to drive sales when the rush itself doesn't add anything. That's a little exploitative to me. Using love to drive sales would also be exploitative to me (in that case, more so, since I value love pretty highly). Using sugar to drive sales also seems exploitative to me (in that case, less so, since I don't value a sugar rush that highly). Using alcohol to drive sales I recognize as exploiative, I just usually don't care (hooray beer). In this case, I care. If WotC was serving beer at their Encounters sessions, I wouldn't care (in fact, it would make me roughly 300% more likely to attend), but I bet at least a few parents would.  If WotC had strippers at Encounters, I would care, but I bet a big chunk of the posters here wouldn't. 

We can, I hope, officially stop with the "It isn't drugs, you reactionary crazy person!" line of discrediting. I can easily throw more links into the grist mill for why exploiting this reward system is potentially problematic, independent of any illicit chemicals, but I think I've explained my rationale pretty in-depth at this point. The marketing logic behind randomized boosters is something I find unpleasant, because the randomization doesn't add to anyone's D&D game, but it does exploit a very human reaction for pure monetary gain without giving anything back for that exploitation (since pack randomization doesn't in any way make the game better, AFAICT). 

Magic is "crack." Pokemon itself has been cause for attention. I don't really appreciate seeing D&D go down the same rabbit hole. That's not a very extreme position to take, really.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that's a bit strong.  Randomized boosters keep costs down as well - since non-random would mean that I have to buy the whole deck.  Right there, that's a bonus.  Getting players to spend twenty bucks on a deck might be a trick, but, most players will drop a couple of bucks on something like this.
> 
> "Vile" is pretty strong language.  But, if you feel that strongly about it, I can totally see why you'd be against it




I wouldn't expect everyone to have that reaction. But when I see this, I think of people in my life that I've seen hurt by things like compulsive gambling, or a severe WoW or "Evercrack" habit (one that gets in the way of doing things they should be doing), or that guy who eats a KFC double-down to make himself happy, or the girl I know who might buy shoes instead of clothes for her kid. Whatever the "true cause" of the problems for these folks, little marketing tricks like this are fuel for the fire. I can understand that most of the time these things are harmless and have might have some marginal benefit, but I don't clearly see the benefit to the consumer, to a D&D player, in selling Fate Packs like this. I only see the benefit to the company. Which makes it not just a bad purchase, but a bad purchase that uses a problematic mental trick to ensure that it keeps getting made by _some sucker_. It's raw, naked profit motive, and that irks me for a whole host of other reasons too long and political to get into here.  But since the Fate cards are getting it from at least two sides, yeah, I'd say I feel pretty strongly about it. It makes the things not fun anymore.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I'm thinking that's a bit strong.  Randomized boosters keep costs down as well - since non-random would mean that I have to buy the whole deck.  Right there, that's a bonus.  Getting players to spend twenty bucks on a deck might be a trick, but, most players will drop a couple of bucks on something like this.




You did see my post above analyzing costs right? By the time you buy two of these you probably could have bought a whole single deck for a dollar more and had twice as many cards. The completed decks from Paizo are not $20 they are $11.  I'll believe $2 booster packs when I see them. I'm guessing $5, at least, is more in line with general WotC pricing practices.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It would, but it's not really the completion that bothers me. It's that selling randomized boosters exploits a pretty destructive cognitive trick for monetary gain, and gives me no added benefit in my D&D games. The cards could be fun. The method with which they are being sold, however, seems pretty vile to me.




I think you're missing what we know about the cards, and replacing it with what you dislike about collectible card games though...

In a normal collectible card game, the rules actively encourage the player to go out and buy more cards.

"If you can just get the right combination of cards your deck will be perfect- you can beat your friends."

Buying more cards helps you get the right cards and build that perfect deck.

This is not true in this case.

From what they've said- the packs are randomized so that every pack you buy is just as effective as the last one. The balance stays the same. The rules actively prevent you from building the "perfect deck." You could go out and buy 1000 packs, but the deck you are allowed by the rules to build will be just as beneficial as a single pack of the cards.

This is the exact opposite of what you're upset about really.

I can buy one pack, and have no fear that I won't get as much benefit as Johnny Rich-Guy's deck of 10 million cards.


Again if the format isn't you preferred format that's all good. To each his own... But I think your negativity is misplaced on this one.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 27, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> or that guy who eats a KFC double-down to make himself happy




See, I don't find KFC exploitative in this case. An occassional double-down is not going to adversely affect your health. Just as smart buying practices with collectable cards will not harm you. One needs to be in control of their own implulses or get help. No one is exploiting the addict (although drug dealers that get someone physically addicted for free before they start charging is an obvious exception), each of us needs to live responsibly.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 27, 2010)

Wicht said:


> You did see my post above analyzing costs right? By the time you buy two of these you probably could have bought a whole single deck for a dollar more and had twice as many cards. The completed decks from Paizo are not $20 they are $11.  I'll believe $2 booster packs when I see them. I'm guessing $5, at least, is more in line with general WotC pricing practices.




A Magic booster pack is currently $3.75 for 15 cards or 25 cents per card. Just to provide a point of reference. This model, if applied to Fortune cards, allows a small buy-in for card expansions.

Paizo's Plot Twist deck is $10.99 for 51 cards or 21.5 cents per card. This model creates a static deck until Plot Twist 2 is released for an additional $10.99, if such a product were to ever exist at all.

Each model has its plusses and minuses as far as I can tell.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2010)

Wicht said:


> You did see my post above analyzing costs right? By the time you buy two of these you probably could have bought a whole single deck for a dollar more and had twice as many cards. The completed decks from Paizo are not $20 they are $11.  I'll believe $2 booster packs when I see them. I'm guessing $5, at least, is more in line with general WotC pricing practices.




As was said, since you have absolutely no idea what the price point is going to be, why automatically assume the worst?

A five dollar booster isn't going to sell, at least, I don't think it would.  Too much for an impulse buy, which is likely where a lot of sales are going to draw from.  

I can't see these being much more than a Magic pack.  Maybe.  If they are, I certainly wouldn't buy them.

Just as a question, because I really have no idea, are the Paizo decks available in hobby shops?  Or only from their online store?  Looking at their site, I see that it's tied heavily into their subscription model, which I have no interest in.  

Just trying to get all the facts.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think you're missing what we know about the cards, and replacing it with what you dislike about collectible card games though...
> 
> In a normal collectible card game, the rules actively encourage the player to go out and buy more cards.
> 
> ...




A fine point. The big question with the non-deck building model will be:
can players keep using existing opened cards at official events or will buying new packs be required to participate?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2010)

> From what they've said- the packs are randomized so that every pack you buy is just as effective as the last one. The balance stays the same. The rules actively prevent you from building the "perfect deck." You could go out and buy 1000 packs, but the deck you are allowed by the rules to build will be just as beneficial as a single pack of the cards.
> 
> This is the exact opposite of what you're upset about really.
> 
> I can buy one pack, and have no fear that I won't get as much benefit as Johnny Rich-Guy's deck of 10 million cards.




My major problem with the cards is a very specific one, actually, and not exactly this one. I'm not too worried about little Peter Moneybags having The Best Deck and leaving everyone in the dust (it's a distant concern, one that the information about the cards does much to dispel). The pleasure release isn't about the success, really. Compulsive gamblers like to win, sure, but it's not about the winning. It's about the playing. The chance element. That's the element that randomized card packs exploit. That's the thing that leads to "addictive" behavior. That's what doesn't add anything at the table. That's the predatory business practice. That was also my major issue with the minis. 

If they simply dropped the randomized booster aspect of the cards, I pretty much have no problem with them (and in fact think they're a keen idea -- the TORG drama deck is plenty fun).  

$4 or $5 or $3.45 (which is really seems like splitting hairs to me, but whatever) for a a booster pack may or may not reflect that pack's true value to you. A slot machine only costs $.50. Buying it is a gamble. And that's when it becomes kind of exploitative. And that's what makes it unwelcome for me.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2010)

KM said:
			
		

> $4 or $5 or $3.45 (which is really seems like splitting hairs to me, but whatever) for a a booster pack may or may not reflect that pack's true value to you. A slot machine only costs $.50. Buying it is a gamble. And that's when it becomes kind of exploitative. And that's what makes it unwelcome for me.




To be fair, he did say "more" than 5 dollars.  Then again, depends on which currency he's talking about too.  

I can see where you're coming from KM.  We've all got stuff that hits us just perfectly wrongly.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> A fine point. The big question with the non-deck building model will be:
> can players keep using existing opened cards at official events or will buying new packs be required to participate?




There has been nothing to indicate this would be the case. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> The chance element. That's the element that randomized card packs exploit. That's the thing that leads to "addictive" behavior. That's what doesn't add anything at the table. That's the predatory business practice. That was also my major issue with the minis.
> 
> A slot machine only costs $.50. Buying it is a gamble. And that's when it becomes kind of exploitative. And that's what makes it unwelcome for me.




And again this is where I think you're missing it.

There in't a greater chance factor to exploit. 

In a Collectible Card Game, or a slot machine as you mention, the system is set up so that if you keep playing, you have a chance at greater success.

"If I just put in another quarter I'll get the big payout."

"If I just buy another booster I'll get that super great card."

They exploit your desire to win by letting you buy more and more to increase your odds.

This isn't true in this case.  You have the same chance of drawing an "awesome card" with one pack as you do with 100 packs. 

There is nothing motivating you to buy more packs, aside from your own desire to own stuff- And that's no more exploitative then anything being sold in any form.  If you want something you pay money for it.

If you lack self control and can't stop buying them.. Well blaming WoTC would be like blaming a grocery store for you over eating.

The minis I find are an entirely different story. I never really bought them because they DID fall under the sort of exploitative practice you're talking about.  In order to get the better minis for the mini game I had to keep collecting. 

(I wouldn't go so far though as to paint it in as "evil" a light as you seem too, but it was still annoying.)


Also in order to get the ones I needed for my rpg game I had to keep collecting. Random chance in the case of the minis was bad (which is why I give them credit for the seeming move towards tokens.)


----------



## Lord Metal-Demon (Aug 27, 2010)

I'll stick with the Deck Of Many Things, thanks.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 27, 2010)

Hussar said:


> To be fair, he did say "more" than 5 dollars.




Also, assuming that the price will be as high as Magic cards isn't a given. The quality of the Fortune cards is yet to be seen. I hope we don't see foil Fortune cards (which probably push up the price point of Magic Cards).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2010)

> In a Collectible Card Game, or a slot machine as you mention, the system is set up so that if you keep playing, you have a chance at greater success.




A compulsion doesn't really care about the logic. Explain the odds to a compulsive gambler, and they'll usually just shrug. They know the odds. They know they're not likely to win more than they loose. They know it doesn't pay off to keep pumping the machine full of quarters. They're well aware that the payout probably isn't coming, and won't make up for all they've lost anyway. They don't care. 

It's not about winning. It's about playing. As D&D players, I think we can understand that logic pretty well.  



> There is nothing motivating you to buy more packs, aside from your own desire to own stuff- And that's no more exploitative then anything being sold in any form. If you want something you pay money for it.
> 
> If you lack self control and can't stop buying them.. Well blaming WoTC would be like blaming a grocery store for you over eating.




The desire is to keep playing the game of "what cards did I get?!", because the game has set up a pernicious pattern in your brain where when you give WotC $4, you get a little rush (regardless of what's actually in the pack). That's the aspect that is too predatory for my tastes.

And I'm definitely not "blaming" WotC. WotC's business practice in this one case preys on this natural desire without giving anything back. I find it unpleasant. I'm not accusing them of causing the problem, but I am saying I'm not going to support something I see as exacerbating a problem that exists for no clear benefit.

I wouldn't "blame" WotC for alcoholism if they gave away free beer at their Encounters games. I might say that they're exploiting why people like beer in order to sell their little pieces of cardboard. 

In this case, they're exploiting why people like random things in order to sell their little pieces of cardboard.

I take issue with that psychological trick.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> A compulsion doesn't really care about the logic. Explain the odds to a compulsive gambler, and they'll usually just shrug. They know the odds. They know they're not likely to win more than they loose. They know it doesn't pay off to keep pumping the machine full of quarters. They're well aware that the payout probably isn't coming, and won't make up for all they've lost anyway. They don't care.




Odds are unimportant in this case.

It's not your odds of getting a better card it's the fact that you have any kind of chance. The fact that it's there to get in the first place.

I can win, I will be the winner. I put a quarter in no matter how small the odds I COULD be the winner. I could get that card I need.

In this case that doesn't exist.



> It's not about winning. It's about playing. As D&D players, I think we can understand that logic pretty well.
> 
> The desire is to keep playing the game of "what cards did I get?!", because the game has set up a pernicious pattern in your brain where when you give WotC $4, you get a little rush (regardless of what's actually in the pack). That's the aspect that is too predatory for my tastes.




I can sort of understand this- But I don't really see a difference here with any other type of thing for sale. 

You give someone money they give you a thing.



> And I'm definitely not "blaming" WotC. WotC's business practice in this one case preys on this natural desire without giving anything back.




It gives you a thing to use in your game... What else do you want???




> I find it unpleasant. I'm not accusing them of causing the problem, but I am saying I'm not going to support something I see as exacerbating a problem that exists for no clear benefit.
> 
> I wouldn't "blame" WotC for alcoholism if they gave away free beer at their Encounters games. I might say that they're exploiting why people like beer in order to sell their little pieces of cardboard.
> 
> ...




See I think this is where we'll just disagree...

If you notice they seem to be moving towards non random for the things you need to be non random. For instance the power cards- non random. Monster Tokens- Non random.

The things you WANT to be random to use them are. 

I guess you see exploitative, and I see less exploitative by design.

I could say forcing me to buy a 12.00 pack of 80 non random fortune's when I only really need a 3 dollar pack of 8 cards is exploitative.

Again- far be it from me though to tell you you need to buy the things.  

Whatever your feelings are are your feelings- hopefully I'm not coming across as trying to say your feeling are "wrong..."  I'm just seeing the oposite with these... that's all


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> There has been nothing to indicate this would be the case.




At this time, you are correct which is why my comment was phrased as a question rather than a statement. However: 

Originally Posted by *TirionAnthion* 

 
_"PRODUCTS REQUIRED TO PLAY 
Each table participating in the D&D GAMMA WORLD Game Day will need the following products, in addition to the materials provided in this kit:

One (1) D&D GAMMA WORLD roleplaying game boxed set – the DM uses the rulebook and tokens from the set during play. 

Two (2) D&D GAMMA WORLD booster packs for each player participating in the game. Players should purchase these booster packs at their local 
game store prior to sitting down to play."_
[END QUOTE] 

If this list of required materials is accurate and proves to be a success then there is no reason to believe that making cards an integral part of other games such as D&D all that far fetched. 

Fortune cards are purely optional as presented for the moment. How long will this be the case? 

I have nothing against card games, board games, or whatever people enjoy for amusement. What I find dissappointing is the transformation of an RPG into a CCG just to grab some revenue. This is a classic example of the industry serving it's own interests at the expense of the hobby.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 27, 2010)

The cards integrate with the system, not the other way around. This _optional_ addition is just that-- optional. To say otherwise is speculating on any given outcome based on any number of variables. Some are looking for any reason to hate the game or any products that come out. 

_The sky is blue and blueberries are blue, therefore the sky tastes like blueberries.

_Imagine if the same venom was showed by the gaming community when Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson introduced dice other than the d6 to a game. 

_Oh my god! Gary Gygax and his team of goons over at TSR are just trying to get us to spend more money by forcing us to buy these funny-sided dice! Screw TSR and their money-grubbing ways!


_


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

Matt James said:


> The cards integrate with the system, not the other way around. This _optional_ addition is just that-- optional. To say otherwise is speculating on any given outcome based on any number of variables. Some are looking for any reason to hate the game or any products that come out.
> 
> _The sky is blue and blueberries are blue, therefore the sky tastes like blueberries._
> 
> ...




I don't remember ever hearing about Gygax or Arneson ever trying to sell blind and random dice with rarities...


----------



## Matt James (Aug 27, 2010)

So your issue is with the company trying to sell a product? One that is in no way required for game play?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 27, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> My major problem with the cards is a very specific one, actually, and not exactly this one. I'm not too worried about little Peter Moneybags having The Best Deck and leaving everyone in the dust (it's a distant concern, one that the information about the cards does much to dispel). The pleasure release isn't about the success, really. Compulsive gamblers like to win, sure, but it's not about the winning. It's about the playing. The chance element. That's the element that randomized card packs exploit. That's the thing that leads to "addictive" behavior. That's what doesn't add anything at the table. That's the predatory business practice. That was also my major issue with the minis.
> 
> If they simply dropped the randomized booster aspect of the cards, I pretty much have no problem with them (and in fact think they're a keen idea -- the TORG drama deck is plenty fun).
> 
> $4 or $5 or $3.45 (which is really seems like splitting hairs to me, but whatever) for a a booster pack may or may not reflect that pack's true value to you. A slot machine only costs $.50. Buying it is a gamble. And that's when it becomes kind of exploitative. And that's what makes it unwelcome for me.



 I do think that you are overstating the addictive nature of the fortune card mechanic. If as they say, that there is going to be no advatage to creating a deck out of multiple packs before the game over buying one for the game then i have difficulty in comparing it to magic, WoW or gambling. In Magic there is a payoff in buying as many boosters as you can, both in the game result of aquiring rares and in the collector scavenger hunt thrill of getting a rare. In WoW there is a benefit of levels and gear of playing longer. Gambling will make payouts if you keep playing (not enough in general to allow you to break even but some payouts will occur) 

Even if someone buys a booster per session, there is only so many sessions of D&D they play in a week and from what I understand in pretty short order they would have aquired all possible cards. 

In the early days of magic I knew people who were spending pretty much of all their spare income after food, clothing and rent on cards.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> At this time, you are correct which is why my comment was phrased as a question rather than a statement. However:
> 
> Originally Posted by *TirionAnthion*
> 
> ...




If this is true, it has got to be one of the most wrong-headed things I've seen WotC do... especially if this is suppose to get new people interested in Gamma World. Why on earth would someone who has never played GW before buy 2 packs of boosters, that have no purpose outside the game... in order to try out the game? This just doesn't make sense unless they are only targetting current GW players.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

Matt James said:


> So your issue is with the company trying to sell a product? One that is in no way required for game play?




If this is directed at me... My problem was mostly with your analogy that was comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> At this time, you are correct which is why my comment was phrased as a question rather than a statement. However:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## avjax (Aug 27, 2010)

Matt James said:


> The cards integrate with the system, not the other way around. This _optional_ addition is just that-- optional. To say otherwise is speculating on any given outcome based on any number of variables. Some are looking for any reason to hate the game or any products that come out.
> 
> _The sky is blue and blueberries are blue, therefore the sky tastes like blueberries.
> 
> ...



Didn't wotc also claim that playing with maps and minis was optional, it can be done but the system doesn't support it. They are writing the system to make money rather than creating a system which makes money because it's great. People will see through what it is - a push from the share holders and the hasbro big wigs to make DND more profitible before they either get rid of the license or ax the management.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> ExploderWizard said:
> 
> 
> > At this time, you are correct which is why my comment was phrased as a question rather than a statement. However:
> ...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 27, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> A Magic booster pack is currently $3.75 for 15 cards or 25 cents per card. Just to provide a point of reference. This model, if applied to Fortune cards, allows a small buy-in for card expansions.
> 
> Paizo's Plot Twist deck is $10.99 for 51 cards or 21.5 cents per card. This model creates a static deck until Plot Twist 2 is released for an additional $10.99, if such a product were to ever exist at all.




Actually, if it's true that normally the Paizo Plot Twist pack isn't available in the hobby channel (unless you specifically order it from your FLGS), the Paizo deck is more expensive.   Even at the cheapest shipping, the deck, pre-tax is $14.92, or 29.2 cents per card.



Scribble said:


> In a Collectible Card Game, or a slot machine as you mention, the system is set up so that if you keep playing, you have a chance at greater success.
> 
> "If I just put in another quarter I'll get the big payout."
> 
> ...



This is how I see it.  I am the kind of guy that gets caught up in the "just one more, and it'll be more awesome" draw of a slot machine or a CCG that can give you better play by getting the better cards.

But I can see how a single Fortune card booster is just as good a Bill's mega deck of fortune cards, so I am not drawn to "more, more, more".

Though, I appreciate KM's concern.  Taking advantage of another's weaknesses is troubling.  In this case, though I am not sure if the weakness trigger is as strong as a CCG or slot machine.


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yes but if this is to get new people to try the game for the first time... Why would they want to be forced to buy stuff for it and there's no guarantee they will like it enough to want to pursue the actual game?




The requirements simply state that there needs to be 2 packs per player. It says that the players should buy it, but that doesn't mean that, to get players to play the game, the FLGS couldn't simply open a couple of packs and have them at each table for players to use.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 27, 2010)

avjax said:


> Didn't wotc also claim that playing with maps and minis was optional, it can be done but the system doesn't support it..




Can you please cite that quote? It may exist, I honestly don't know. I would just like to see it.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> If this is directed at me... My problem was mostly with your analogy that was comparing apples and oranges.




I wouldn't say apples and oranges.

Both are add on products that are designed to enhance your game experience.
While true, you have no idea the exact nature of the cards you are buying, their effect on your game will be the same no matter which pack you buy.

It would be similar to if you just bought dice, and they sent you a dice set of a random color.

Sure- not being able to choose the color is a drawback, but not of the level that effects your game, and not of the level some people seem to be indicating about the cards.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> The requirements simply state that there needs to be 2 packs per player. It says that the players should buy it, but that doesn't mean that, to get players to play the game, the FLGS couldn't simply open a couple of packs and have them at each table for players to use.




 What?  It says the players *should buy it*.  But, because it doesn't say force the players to buy it... there's the off chance that an FLGS (but not WotC) will just give them out for free, otherwise anyone who wants to try GW out before spending money on it is outta luck... Really, this is the argument you're making??  This is really stretching it... it's clear they are encouraging and even expect a totally new gamer to buy two packs of cards before playing their first game of GW.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 27, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have nothing against card games, board games, or whatever people enjoy for amusement. What I find dissappointing is the transformation of an RPG into a CCG just to grab some revenue. This is a classic example of the industry serving it's own interests at the expense of the hobby.




As I said a couple years ago when 4e just came out, it seems to me WotC isn't interested in hobbyists, they're interested in consumers.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I wouldn't say apples and oranges.
> 
> Both are add on products that are designed to enhance your game experience.
> While true, you have no idea the exact nature of the cards you are buying, their effect on your game will be the same no matter which pack you buy.
> ...




No the effect on the game won't be the same regardless of what cards you get... because the cards have different effects... thus why the randomization would work... otherwise randomization wouldn't mean a thing.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 27, 2010)

I'm not getting the outrage here.  If the idea is to throw some random fun into th emix and do it via a card pack, what is the problem?  As others have said, there is no advantage to have a "complete" set of cards, so it really isn't a collectible system, other than for the sake of being complete.  

As for there being different levels of rarity, that makes perfect sense to me: If there is a card that states a fog/steam/smoke could overlays one half the battlefield creating penalties, that card might be a "common" card because it is a simple and fairly expected event.  On the other hand, if there is a card for a minor earthquake that reduces movement rates or requires balance checks, that card should be a heck of a less common to encounter in card packs, because you don't expect minor earthquakes to happen on your battlefields as often as you might find a fog cloud.  

As for them becoming a future requirement, rather than an option; well, perhaps that can happen in an offcial tournament or event, but they certainly cannot make the cards a requirement at your home campaign.  Even the Gamma World cards as described aren't a requirement.  To take them out, you just need to substitute a little personal creativity to derive and explain some of the random mutations.  Maybe your group would need to buy (or borrow) a couple of packs to learn how to construct your own balanced mutations, but you would not need to buy them for each session.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What?  It says the players *should buy it*.  But, because it doesn't say force the players to buy it... there's the off chance that an FLGS (but not WotC) will just give them out for free, otherwise anyone who wants to try GW out before spending money on it is outta luck... Really, this is the argument you're making??  This is really stretching it... it's clear they are encouraging and even expect a totally new gamer to buy two packs of cards before playing their first game of GW.




I would much rather pay 3 bucks to try out a game then pay over 30 to buy it... try it, and realize it's not for me.

Sure it would be great if WoTC foot the bill for the packs of cards, but is that feasible?

If the answer is no, they wouldn't be able to afford that- I'd rather have a small buy in to try the game before the big buy in, rather then no buy in, but no ability to try it before you buy it.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 27, 2010)

I don't recall the backlash in 2e when trading cards were introduced by TSR in the early 90s.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> No the effect on the game won't be the same regardless of what cards you get... because the cards have different effects... thus why the randomization would work... otherwise randomization wouldn't mean a thing.




They're randomized within the packs, so that the benefit of each pack is = to the benefit of each other pack.

For instance there's no chance that say a card in this pack will give you a +5 bonus, but the highest bonus from a card in the next pack will give you only +2. Both will give you a card with the +5 bonus possibility.


The cards might have different flavor- but thats the equivalent of the dice colors.

You don't need to continuously buy packs on a quest to hunt down the elusive +5 bonus card.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I would much rather pay 3 bucks to try out a game then pay over 30 to buy it... try it, and realize it's not for me.
> 
> Sure it would be great if WoTC foot the bill for the packs of cards, but is that feasible?
> 
> If the answer is no, they wouldn't be able to afford that- I'd rather have a small buy in to try the game before the big buy in, rather then no buy in, but no ability to try it before you buy it.




First off, I totally disagree... I shouldn't have to pay to demo a product you are trying to sell to me... Second, if the cards are optional, as has been stated before, why put this requirement in the GD at all?  If GW is perfectly playable without boosters let the game sell itself.


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What?  It says the players *should buy it*.  But, because it doesn't say force the players to buy it... there's the off chance that an FLGS (but not WotC) will just give them out for free, otherwise anyone who wants to try GW out before spending money on it is outta luck... Really, this is the argument you're making??




Note that I did not say "give them out for free". I said that the store would have a couple of packs open at each table for players to use if they want to try it out. This is no different than my FLGS, which is fairly heavily oriented towards Magic and YuGiOh, having a bunch of starter packs open and available for new players who would like to give it a try to use.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 27, 2010)

I think we're veering into Gamma World. This should probably remain about Fortune Cards as they relate to D&D.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> They're randomized within the packs, so that the benefit of each pack is = to the benefit of each other pack.
> 
> For instance there's no chance that say a card in this pack will give you a +5 bonus, but the highest bonus from a card in the next pack will give you only +2. Both will give you a card with the +5 bonus possibility.
> 
> ...




This doesn't make sense... as seen in CCG's and collectible mini games... even cards and minis with the same rarity can have different levels of power in the game... so no your assumption that rarity level does, on a one for one basis, equate to power level is not correct.


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> First off, I totally disagree... I shouldn't have to pay to demo a product you are trying to sell to me... Second, if the cards are optional, as has been stated before, why put this requirement in the GD at all?  If GW is perfectly playable without boosters let the game sell itself.




1 - WotC designed the game to be played with random elements in the form of cards.
2 - WotC is having a game day, where they want people to try the game in, according to WotC, the way that provides the most fun.

Thus, the game day requires that there be random packs of cards for players to use.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> 1 - WotC designed the game to be played with random elements in the form of cards.
> 2 - WotC is having a game day, where they want people to try the game in, according to WotC, the way that provides the most fun.
> 
> Thus, the game day requires that there be random packs of cards for players to use.




... and that said new players *should* be responsible for purchasing them before trying the game out.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> They're randomized within the packs, so that the benefit of each pack is = to the benefit of each other pack.
> 
> For instance there's no chance that say a card in this pack will give you a +5 bonus, but the highest bonus from a card in the next pack will give you only +2. Both will give you a card with the +5 bonus possibility.
> 
> ...




Another thing to consider is that it looks like not all the cards will be positive effects.  Some are going to be -2, and presumably the rare -5.  I think this is where the "deck building" rules come in, so the guy who spends a ton of money can't stack the deck with all +5 while others are stuck with random chance at -5, -2, +2, or +5.


----------



## Jor-El (Aug 27, 2010)

Not to derail, but on the subject of "paying to demo", some buddies of mine tried to demo 4E at Gencon after being told it wasn't time for the Ravenloft Boardgame demos, but that they'd have to come back about an hour later when someone would be there to run the demo for them...and then told them they'd have to pay .25 each for character sheets in order to demo a game that WoTC would presumably want them to buy. 

Money wasn't an object, and .25 certainly wasn't an issue, but it was the principle of it. They walked away and never went back. 

Requiring players to buy something in order to demo a game you want them to start playing and buying other products for, seems like a somewhat "poisonous" marketing tactic. 

You know, "catch more flies with honey" and all that. 

The smarter thing would be to offer the card packs/character sheets/whatever for free. If the cost to do that is prohibitive, then I'd say they have bigger problems to worry about!


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> ... and that said new players *should* be responsible for purchasing them before trying the game out.




I am not sure whether I should be shocked or not that WotC wants people to buy their stuff.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I am not sure whether I should be shocked or not that WotC wants people to buy their stuff.




Here we go... "They're a corporation, so anything they do in the name of making a profit is excusable..."

Nowhere have I said I had a problem with WotC wanting people to purchase things... the tactic used for the GW gameday... yeah, I kinda do.

*~ don't put words in someone else's mouth. You don't like it when you think someone is doing it to you (and mudbunny isn't doing it here anyway: Admin ~*


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 27, 2010)

Matt James said:


> I don't recall the backlash in 2e when trading cards were introduced by TSR in the early 90s.





Did those trading cards have ANY tagible, in-game impact or were they just pretty to look at?


----------



## Matt James (Aug 27, 2010)

Is the 4e game system now requiring you to use the Fortune Cards? I think it keeps coming back to this. What about Paizo's  Plot Twist Cards? Those can seriously hamper or benefit your character in the story. Should we boycott them now too? Probably not, considering they are _optional_ as well.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 27, 2010)

Matt James said:


> I don't recall the backlash in 2e when trading cards were introduced by TSR in the early 90s.




Totally different than making them part of the actual play content of an rpg. 

Heck I have no issues with a D&D based fully collectible card game just keep it separate from the core roleplaying game. Those that want all the card goodness can have it and those who enjoy a more traditional rpg still have it.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> First off, I totally disagree... I shouldn't have to pay to demo a product you are trying to sell to me... Second, if the cards are optional, as has been stated before, why put this requirement in the GD at all?  If GW is perfectly playable without boosters let the game sell itself.




Hey you're welcome to your opinion. I was stating mine.

I would rather be able to demo a game for a small amount of money then not demo it at all for whatever reason.

This is preferable to me then to purchase the game, try it out, and realize it sucks.  Even if I can return it, doing so is a hassle I find less desirable then the price of a pack of cards.

Sure, they could let it be played without the boosters- but this is helping out the store as well. It's incentive to get the store to put the effort into demoing the product.



Imaro said:


> This doesn't make sense... as seen in CCG's and collectible mini games... even cards and minis with the same rarity can have different levels of power in the game... so no your assumption that rarity level does, on a one for one basis, equate to power level is not correct.




Those games are designed to press you towards searching for that elusive card. The one that will give you a better bonus. They're that way by design. Buying more cards increases your chance of getting a better deck.

This is why these cards are NOT a collectible card game, they don't operate under that premise. You're not buying them to collect the deck that will give you the best bonus possible.

If you like buying them because you want to see new cards, that's cool... But there is no rules incentive or advantage to get you to do so.

(At least this is what they seemed to indicate in the press release thing. It might be completely different in the actual release, but nothing about the press release indicates it is otherwise, unless you ignore the fact that they said they're not operating under the collectible premise.)


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> No where have I said I had a problem with WotC wanting people to purchase things... the tactic used for the GW gameday... yeah, I kinda do.




WotC is the people that are setting up the Game Day. It is fully within their rights to say how it should be played. Is this *any* different than Lucasfilm deciding, when they released Star Wars Episode 1, that only theatres with a specific set-up could show the film?

In exactly the same manner, the public is within their right to purchase the cards and play the demo or not.

The kerfluffle that is being displayed over this is, to me, rather amusing.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> WotC is the people that are setting up the Game Day. It is fully within their rights to say how it should be played. Is this *any* different than Lucasfilm deciding, when they released Star Wars Episode 1, that only theatres with a specific set-up could show the film?
> 
> In exactly the same manner, the public is within their right to purchase the cards and play the demo or not.
> 
> The kerfluffle that is being displayed over this is, to me, rather amusing.




Again, you conflate the issue... I haven't commented on their rights at all. There are plenty of things within the law that are not necessarily looked upon by society or individuals favorably. I am saying that I don'tlook favorably upon the tactic they are using to sell more Gamma boosters to people who don't play or even understand the game yet.

The hoops you are willing to jump through, in order to make WotC's actions in this regard seem justified and right, are rather amusing as well.


----------



## Matt James (Aug 27, 2010)

I'll ask again, because this is getting confusing. Is this topic supposed to be on the Fortune Cards in D&D or the Gamma World game? Two separate topics.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Those games are designed to press you towards searching for that elusive card. The one that will give you a better bonus. They're that way by design. Buying more cards increases your chance of getting a better deck.
> 
> This is why these cards are NOT a collectible card game, they don't operate under that premise. You're not buying them to collect the deck that will give you the best bonus possible.
> 
> ...




So they're not "collectible" (whatever that means) but they operate on a rarity level and different cards have differing power levels... sounds like a CCG or Collectible mini game to me.  I mean these cards do actually affect the game and I believe rares have a bigger impact... so why would I not be looking for a rare that impacts the game for my character in the best possible way?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 27, 2010)

Matt James said:


> I'll ask again, because this is getting confusing. Is this topic supposed to be on the Fortune Cards in D&D or the Gamma World game? Two separate topics.




It is actually about neither.  It's about using a sentence or fact about one or the both as support for pre-existing grievances, while ignoring sentences or facts that cannot be twisted to provide that support.  That doesn't require consistency, so everyone who is conflating them is still well within the bounds of the "argument."


----------



## Scribble (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> So they're not "collectible" (whatever that means) but they operate on a rarity level and different cards have differing power levels... sounds like a CCG or Collectible mini game to me.  I mean these cards do actually affect the game and I believe rares have a bigger impact... so why would I not be looking for a rare that impacts the game for my character in the best possible way?




Because the rarity levels are supposed to be equivalent through the cards. So a rare power level should = a rare power level in another card.

If it doesn't it's not by design. (People are human, balance mistakes will be made.)

In CCGs one rare might be slightly more powerful then another by design, to tempt you to buy more cards.

If you can get that more powerful one and fill your deck with the best cards, you have a better chance of beating your opponent.

Sometimes the packs are even random in whether or not they contain a rare card- also by design.

In this case, from what they said, it appears all packs will have an equal number of rare common and uncommon. 


In this design, from what I understand- if you open a pack and have say a 13% chance to draw the best card- even if you build a deck out of 800 packs, you'll still only have a 13% chance to pull the best power level.

Again this is what I took away from the limited info they gave out in the gencon seminar. I could be wrong- and maybe it will be exactly like Magic and other CCGs. In which case I'll give them the same level of annoyance I give the other CCGs.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Aug 27, 2010)

I don't get the big deal.

It seems that these event cards can be replicated by just rolling on a random event table.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 27, 2010)

I think the card and collectible aspects of this are red herrings. What really puzzles me is the continuing trend to make both 4E and Pathfinder, i.e. most of the modern D&D experience, a "storygame", as opposed to a "role playing game". More thoughts on this.


----------



## Falstaff (Aug 27, 2010)

If I ever have to buy some cards to play D&D, I'm done. Same thing goes for requiring digital media from the internet.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 27, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> What really puzzles me is the continuing trend to make both 4E and Pathfinder, i.e. most of the modern D&D experience, a "storygame", as opposed to a "role playing game". More thoughts on this.




Hmm.

Before I address this, I want to clarify the point under discussion, because conversations about "storygames" and "narrativism vs. simulationism" tend to get lost in a fog of vague, ill-defined terminology.

Your specific concern here, as I understand it, is the question:* "What is the player's role in the game?"* In other words, is the player supposed to see through the PC's eyes and manipulate the world through the PC's actions? Or is the player supposed to assume a more detached, "god's-eye view" and manipulate events in an abstract/metagame way?

If I'm correct, you see a trend in 3E and 4E toward the latter (which I'm going to call "third-person gaming"), away from previous games which assumed the former ("first-person gaming"). Yes?

_From here on, I'm going to assume the above statements are correct. If they're not, disregard everything that follows._

I didn't see any such trend previous to 4E. In fact, I would have said 3E was the apotheosis of the "first-person" approach, trying to be extremely rigorous about simulating the way the world reacted to the PCs' first-person actions.

4E has definitely shifted toward the third person. (Like you, I'm hoping Essentials represents a turn back the other way.) However, I don't think it was a decision that "We think people will enjoy third-person better than first-person." Rather, I would say the 4E designers simply found it easier to make a third-person game--because in a third-person game, you don't have to worry about justifying your mechanics within the game world. You can foist off that job on the players.

In a first-person game, if you want to introduce a power like every 4E opponent's favorite hobbyhorse, "Come and Get It," you then have to answer questions like "What the heck is this power _doing_, and why does it work on enemy wizards, who have no conceivable reason to wade into melee?"

In a third-person game, you can shrug and say, "These are the mechanics. It's up to you, DM, to explain why the enemy wizard is doing this." When you're building a mechanically complex game from the ground up, it's very handy to be able to do that.

(Which is not to say I agree with the decision to do it. I just understand why one would make that decision.)

That said, 4E has not moved as far toward third-person as many people believe. You have to be willing to accept a few more Acceptable Breaks From Reality* (previous editions already had some major ABFRs, the XP system being probably the biggest), but you can still play it first-person. Come and Get It is an extreme example. Most powers work perfectly well from a first-person point of view.

[size=-2]*Warning: TVTropes link.[/size]


----------



## cheard (Aug 27, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> I wonder how 4e-specific they'll be. Can I use them for Pathfinder/3.xe? Can I use them for Savage Worlds/GURPS/M&M?




Based on what I've heard in interviews/recordings from GenCon, I'm assuming they'll be very 4e-specific. At least, I hope so. 4e, Pathfinder, M&M, etc. are similar enough that some cards could potentially cross systems, but only if written as least common denominator effects, which wouldn't really be very interesting. Take something as simple as "+1 speed" … that doesn't translate so well across 4e, Pathfinder, and M&M. For more examples, grab a Paizo Critical Hits deck; I used one for my 3.5e games, but it doesn't translate well to 4e.

I'm very interested to see how well these Fortune Cards work out, and I'm eager to give them a shot at my table. It's worth noting (must type that phrase very carefully, to avoid introducing a game-changing "h") that there are at least one or two third-party Fortune Card type products in the PDF product marketplace. Everybody knows these are completely optional products to be used at the DM's discretion. Just because it's WotC publishing Fortune Cards doesn't give Fortune Cards a different status in this regard; they're still optional products to be used at the DM's discretion, just like D&D Miniatures.

On a slightly different note, I've been confused by a couple of comments in earlier posts. I did not have the presence of mind to copy the links and such (sorry!), but here goes.

First, WotC has not eliminated the D&D Minis line in favor of tokens. They have repackaged the minis line back into randomly-packed boosters, increased the price , and introduced a fourth level of super-rare frequency , but they haven't given up on the minis line. At least, I am not aware of any such announcement. Certainly we have the Lords of Madness set coming in September, and the "limited edition" Beholders set coming out in October. The inclusion of tokens in Game Day materials and the new boxed sets is both a cost-saving measure and a gateway drug to actual miniatures. It gives new DMs and players—or those who haven't invested in miniatures—a way to represent the monsters and PCs on the table right away, but it doesn't presage a complete abandonment of WotC minis, _as far as I can tell given my current level of information about the subject._

Second, as much fun as Hasbro-bashing might seem, it's precisely WotC's relationship with Hasbro that allows them to produce Dungeon Tiles, the new tokens, and such and sell them at relatively low prices. Or at least so I was told by a WotC employee just before WotC switched from the DT series to the DU series of Dungeon Tiles.


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (Aug 27, 2010)

Imaro said:


> If this is true, it has got to be one of the most wrong-headed things I've seen WotC do... especially if this is suppose to get new people interested in Gamma World. Why on earth would someone who has never played GW before buy 2 packs of boosters, that have no purpose outside the game... in order to try out the game? This just doesn't make sense unless they are only targetting current GW players.




Think about it like this: your FLGS is considering hosting the Gamma World Game Day, and they've set aside room in their store for 10-20 people to try out the game. With WotC requiring that each participant purchase two packs of cards, they will then be buying at least ~$5 worth of product while they are in the store.

In some ways, it's an attempt to provide that the store gets at least a minimum amount of income from the people coming to the Game Day... in the same way that some CCG/CMG debut events have random booster tourneys.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 28, 2010)

Dr. Confoundo said:


> Think about it like this: your FLGS is considering hosting the Gamma World Game Day, and they've set aside room in their store for 10-20 people to try out the game. With WotC requiring that each participant purchase two packs of cards, they will then be buying at least ~$5 worth of product while they are in the store.
> 
> In some ways, it's an attempt to provide that the store gets at least a minimum amount of income from the people coming to the Game Day... in the same way that some CCG/CMG debut events have random booster tourneys.




There is nothing wrong with hosting pay to play tournements. Requiring a purchase of product to play in a _demo of a roleplaying game_ is a bit different. If the appeal of the game cannot be demonstrated with the contents that come with the game what message does that send? 

Hey, here is a really neat new rpg that isn't that exciting to play unless you buy these add-on cards to go with it. Make sure the core game is good first, then push supplements.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The question is: at what point do you draw the line between advertising and "marketing strategy" and manipulating people's minds to make a quick buck?



Manipulating people's minds to make a buck _is_ marketing.

But in today's day and age, most consumers know that retailers are going to try to manipulate their minds. People know they are being mareketed to.



> I'd like to have consumers who truly purchase something with the value of that something in mind, rather than consumers who love gambling on a friggin' pack of cards for D&D. But if some people want that thrill, I'm not going to stop them.



Thank you for your permission to enjoy spending my own money on things I think I will enjoy experiencing or owning. I'll certainly sleep better tonight knowing that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 28, 2010)

Scribble said:
			
		

> It gives you a thing to use in your game... What else do you want???




It doesn't always give you a thing to use in your game (say, what if you get a repeat? Or what if you get a card that doesn't have much use for your character? Or what if the cards vary in power, like, say, feats of the same tier? Or what if one rare has prettier art than another?). That gambling mechanism is what makes it a bad purchase for some theoretical "purely rational consumer."

I love the idea of a Fate Deck, I hate the way it is being sold. 



			
				Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> But in today's day and age, most consumers know that retailers are going to try to manipulate their minds. People know they are being mareketed to.




That doesn't really make it OK. Most people know that the KFC double-down is a horrible thing to put in your body. _They do it anyway_. I don't want to forbid it or make a law or say they can't sell it, but I am entirely free to recognize that it is a horrible thing to put in your body, and therefore, *not eat it*. 

I'm free to recognize that the randomized booster pack is a cynical marketing ploy designed to exploit a cheap thrill (give WotC $4 for the simple chance to be awesome!), and, therefore, *not want to buy it*. 

That doesn't really mean I have a problem with the people who want to buy it, or with WotC selling it, it just means my personal calibration for the level of marketing exploitation (or cholesterol) I'm willing to tolerate is perhaps a little lower than that of someone who doesn't care. My only point is that I have a problem with it. No one else has to. 



			
				Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Thank you for your permission to enjoy spending my own money on things I think I will enjoy experiencing or owning. I'll certainly sleep better tonight knowing that.




Listen, _Sarcasmo_, I just wanted to be crystal clear that I'm not jumping up on a soapbox and screaming that WotC should not be allowed to sell their little cardboard gaming bling however they think they should sell them. They can do whatever they want. Clearly. That doesn't mean I have to fall all over myself being totally cool with something that I see as problematic. And given how quick the snide discrediting of "oh you're just against a company making money" pops up in threads like this, I wanted to get it out of the way early on that _no, that's not what's going on here_.

Capiche?


----------



## Greg K (Aug 28, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> I think the card and collectible aspects of this are red herrings..




And, you would be wrong.   I (who started the thread) and others have stated that we like the idea behind similar products (Torg Drama Deck, Savage World's Action Deck, Marvel Super Heroes Fate Deck, DC Universe Drama Deck, Paizo's deck).  What we don't like is WOTC's collectible aspect w/ random boosters which those similar products that I mentioned did not have.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 28, 2010)

Greg K said:


> And, you would be wrong.



As far as YOU are concerned? Sure. As far as I am concerned? I'm right. I did start my sentence with "I think" and pursued with "what puzzles me" after all. You're free to think otherwise. Doesn't make me wrong as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Lord Metal-Demon (Aug 28, 2010)

I, for one, have lost several former TTRPGers to CCGs ... perhaps this is one way the WotC/Hasbro marketing teams have come up with to lure players _back_ to traditional tabletop D&D and expose die-hards to the world of CCGs ... 

I dunno ... I'm just speculating.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2010)

For those of us outside of North America, what the heck is a KFC "double down"?  Is it like "Roll up the Rim to Win?"


----------



## Jor-El (Aug 29, 2010)

Heh, the double down is a monster of a sandwich that doesn't have bread...the "bread" was 2 chicken patties, with cheese and bacon (?) in between.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 29, 2010)

> a sandwich that used either grilled or fried chicken in place of bread and bacon as the "meat," accompanied by multiple layers of cheese, and then a sauce,




Linky.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 29, 2010)

Oh, my, god.  That's disgusting.  Yeesh.  I'm a fat man, and even I wouldn't eat that.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 29, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Heck I have no issues with a D&D based fully collectible card game just keep it separate from the core roleplaying game. Those that want all the card goodness can have it and those who enjoy a more traditional rpg still have it.



What about people who want to combine both in one game?



Matt James said:


> I'll ask again, because this is getting confusing. Is this topic supposed to be on the Fortune Cards in D&D or the Gamma World game? Two separate topics.



It's about random booster packs in table top RPGS. It's a hot topic, one of those things that gets discussed a lot in any thread where the subject could potentially come-up.

See: Kyle Ryner vs. Hal Jorden and emacs vs. vi.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 29, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Oh, my, god.  That's disgusting.  Yeesh.  I'm a fat man, and even I wouldn't eat that.



Yeah. That thing is an insult to everything that's good about food.
Take that from a French guy who ate more than his share of heart attacks on a plate, by the way.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 29, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> What about people who want to combine both in one game?




Then create a game that does exactly that and have at it. No need to morph a game that works fine as is into such a beast.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 29, 2010)

> Oh, my, god. That's disgusting. Yeesh. I'm a fat man, and even I wouldn't eat that.




For once, Generic Food Analogies work! 

That sensation you're feeling is pretty much what I feel when I look at randomized booster packs.


----------



## TheClone (Aug 30, 2010)

My 2 cents:

I don't know what exactly they are planning. If it's like something the DM can give to certain players like a boon, it's okay. But it's not needed at all. According to what I expect of WotC it will be a +1 to damage or whatever boring thing. You can do that quite okay without cards. If it's something the players can bring to the table and use on their own accord, it's horribly. I never ever want to have such a thing at my table. Looks like they're turning it into a kind of MtG card game. Power and Monster Cards are all fine. They make playing easier. But this thing would be the first but fundamental thing I'd really hate about 4e.

Hopefully someone at WotC reads this and the news where only a test.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 30, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Then create a game that does exactly that and have at it. No need to morph a game that works fine as is into such a beast.




What morphing?

There is absolutely no requirement to use these decks in D&D.  In the Gamma Worlds set, the only requirement is in organized play - not at home play.  Again, no one is forcing you to buy the deck, nor does the game require it in the slightest.

It's no different than the fifteen bazillion other doodads and whatnot you can buy for the game.  Did you really need stainless steel dice?  Bent metal bits for templates?  Heck, a DM's screen is more required than these are.  

This is a completely optional product that brings a nifty little random rush to the table - open the pack, pick a card at random, what happens?  

I do this with random tables, myself, but, that doesn't come with pretty pictures.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I do this with random tables, myself, but, that doesn't come with pretty pictures.




Heh, after seeing pictures of the GW cards, I'm not sure the Fortune cards will have any "pretty pictures" either . . . .


----------



## Hussar (Aug 30, 2010)

Now, Dire Bare, that is a very, very good reason to pan the product.  If it's crap, then it's crap.  All this hand wringing about bringing in cards to the game is not going to get anywhere.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 30, 2010)

Dr. Confoundo said:


> Think about it like this: your FLGS is considering hosting the Gamma World Game Day, and they've set aside room in their store for 10-20 people to try out the game. With WotC requiring that each participant purchase two packs of cards, they will then be buying at least ~$5 worth of product while they are in the store.
> 
> In some ways, it's an attempt to provide that the store gets at least a minimum amount of income from the people coming to the Game Day... in the same way that some CCG/CMG debut events have random booster tourneys.




Ok, I understand what you're getting at... but they are trying to make (or STRONGLY suggest) people purchase optional components for a game they don't own and have never played... in order to give their product a chance to be marketed to said people. Personally I just feel the implementation is all wrong. The point of the store demoing the game is that they are carrying GW and want you to purchase it from them, if the demo goes well and it's a fun game... they will get their money in on the spot purchases of the game.

The other reason I don't like this setup is that those cards are worthless to me if I decide not to purchase the game... or if I discover I really don't like GW and it'smoney I could've still spent in the store... on something I actually could use or want. In the end I am now much more likely to just wait for a couple of reviews on the game and buy it online (or not) than to spend money on stuff, I may or may not have a use for, in order to demo the game.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Aug 30, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Then create a game that does exactly that and have at it. No need to morph a game that works fine as is into such a beast.



But what about people who want an optional add-on supplement to D&D? Some people won't buy a separate game, but they'll buy an optional supplement.

It seems to me that this plan is the best of both worlds: Wizards create san optional supplement so people who like the idea can buy it and people who don't like the idea won't. It's like a campaign world. There's no need to make a separate game for Dark Sun, you just create a separate add-on product for the existing game.

Your way creates a separate product that requires more time and energy to develop and market, which would make it more costly to Wizards and less attractive to potential customers.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 30, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> There is nothing wrong with hosting pay to play tournements.




So, if a store charged you play the demo and then gave you two free booster packs, you'd be OK with that?


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 30, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Then create a game that does exactly that and have at it. No need to morph a game that works fine as is into such a beast.




Do you really believe that this optional add-on is going to 'morph the game'?  Really?


----------



## Imaro (Aug 30, 2010)

Holy Bovine said:


> Do you really believe that this optional add-on is going to 'morph the game'? Really?





I'll say I definitely think that sales of this and the GW boosters will be looked at closely to see how well they perform and what they're feasability for implementation in 5e will be.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 30, 2010)

Hrm, WOTC's owned D&D for what, twelve years now?  Just about anyway.  Despite the constant doom and gloom predictions of WOTC turning D&D into just another CCG, it hasn't happened yet.  Do you really think adding something like this is the thin edge of the wedge?  Really?

I think I'll hold off on this one.  Considering how many games now use cards in some form, I'm thinking they're just borrowing an idea from a bunch of other games.


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 30, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'll say I definitely think that sales of this and the GW boosters will be looked at closely to see how well they perform and what they're feasability for implementation in 5e will be.





Bingo! We have a winner. Traditionally, TSR/WotC have used other, non-D&D lines to test the waters for mechanical changes to future D&D edition changes. They used GW 4th ed and Star Wars Saga Edition, just off the top of my head. If this model works even marginally, you'd better believe 5th ed will have randomized, multi-rarity tiered booster cards _built in _to the system.

And for every person that says "no one is _FORCING _you to use these cards", I would agree, in the sense that the WotC secret police won't bust down the door of your  home game and point a gun at your head and MAKE you do anything. But if they create an environment where the player that does use their "optional add-on cards" gets a power boost that you cannot match without your own set of cards, it's effectively the same thing. It would be like the 3.5 splatbook arms race all over again.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 30, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> But what about people who want an optional add-on supplement to D&D? Some people won't buy a separate game, but they'll buy an optional supplement.




Options have a nasty habit of becoming core later.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So, if a store charged you play the demo and then gave you two free booster packs, you'd be OK with that?




I was not referring to demos of any kind. Pay to _play_, not to try out new product. Big difference. 



Holy Bovine said:


> Do you really believe that this optional add-on is going to 'morph the game'? Really?




The magic 8 ball says: " it is entirely possible".



Imaro said:


> I'll say I definitely think that sales of this and the GW boosters will be looked at closely to see how well they perform and what they're feasability for implementation in 5e will be.




The tried and true go-to plan. If GW and the fortune cards are huge hits then I see D&D becoming at least partially a CCG i the future. This is why I wish they would just make the thing, and leave the rpg as an actual rpg. 

An rpg with a collectible booster element integrated into the content of the game is no longer an rpg that I would like to play.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 30, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Ok, I understand what you're getting at... but they are trying to make (or STRONGLY suggest) people purchase optional components for a game they don't own and have never played... in order to give their product a chance to be marketed to said people. Personally I just feel the implementation is all wrong. The point of the store demoing the game is that they are carrying GW and want you to purchase it from them, if the demo goes well and it's a fun game... they will get their money in on the spot purchases of the game.
> 
> The other reason I don't like this setup is that those cards are worthless to me if I decide not to purchase the game... or if I discover I really don't like GW and it'smoney I could've still spent in the store... on something I actually could use or want. In the end I am now much more likely to just wait for a couple of reviews on the game and buy it online (or not) than to spend money on stuff, I may or may not have a use for, in order to demo the game.



Let's assume a pack is somewhere around $3.

$3 won't buy you a decent cup of coffee in a lot of places.

Being out that much to test out a new game?  Trivial.  If you don't like it, you say to yourself, "Well, I learned something useful today, and I'm only out $3."  That's a win.

Then you ask if anyone at the table intends to actually buy the game, and would they like your cards.

You get an afternoon's diversion that taught you not to purchase an expensive game, and some other lucky soul gets an extra pack of cards.  Congratulations, Karma +1 and you killed an afternoon for $3, maybe $6.  Heck, I live pretty cheaply, but I can't think of much of anything I can do with an afternoon out that doesn't cost _at least_ that much.

My god, fairly casual hobbyists along the gadget-y end of the spectrum spend $300 to "try something out" and often laugh their asses off if the item in question crashes, blows up, or melts.  But PnP "hobbyists" can't even contemplate floating a couple packs of cards to try out a game?

No wonder WotC feels the need to broaden the customer base.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 30, 2010)

Canis said:


> Let's assume a pack is somewhere around $3.
> 
> $3 won't buy you a decent cup of coffee in a lot of places.
> 
> ...




A fine suggestion. 



Canis said:


> Congratulations, Karma +1 and you killed an afternoon for $3, maybe $6. Heck, I live pretty cheaply, but I can't think of much of anything I can do with an afternoon out that doesn't cost _at least_ that much.




Imagination fail.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 30, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> If GW and the fortune cards are huge hits then I see D&D becoming at least partially a CCG i the future. This is why I wish they would just make the thing, and leave the rpg as an actual rpg.




Fair enough as a fear, I suppose. I recommend returning to your complaint when it actually happens, though, rather than getting too concerned over a step that _might_ lead there, but that for now remains an optional component that some customers may be genuinely interested in.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 30, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> A fine suggestion.



Thank you.



> Imagination fail.



A needless observation that can only serve to obscure my point by allowing people to take this _ad hominem_.

The point is that sinking $3-6 on an afternoon of most hobbies is getting off WAY light.  To spend that little and walk away with useful data isn't nothing.  And it's certainly not evidence of abuse towards customers.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 30, 2010)

Canis said:


> Let's assume a pack is somewhere around $3.
> 
> $3 won't buy you a decent cup of coffee in a lot of places.
> 
> ...





I think, you've missed my point. Sell me on your game in my "hobby" and I have no problem supporting you, because I feel you have earned it... (so no, it's not about being too cheap to support the "hobby".) I can easily take that $6 and buy a couple common minis for a game I actually play... or maybe some dice for my son, etc... instead of 2 packs of cards I will never use, so please don't try to make it seem like that $6 couldn't support the hobby and benefit me at the same time.

I guess what I'm saying is... don't, with the myriad of rpg's out there (even just counting the one's in this particular genre), try and force me to pay you money to try out your competing product. Of course this is just how I feel.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 30, 2010)

Canis said:


> The point is that sinking $3-6 on an afternoon of most hobbies is getting off WAY light. To spend that little and walk away with useful data isn't nothing. And it's certainly not evidence of abuse towards customers.




Certainly not abuse by any means, just rather uninviting.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 30, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I guess what I'm saying is... don't, with the myriad of rpg's out there (even just counting the one's in this particular genre), try and force me to pay you money to try out your competing product. Of course this is just how I feel.




Fair enough.  I just felt the need to provide some counterpoint.

I, however, think a $3-6 expenditure to "rent" a game system beats the holy heck out of not having a rental option at all.  And, as others have pointed out, it helps out the proprietor of the FLGS.

WotC doesn't need to provide these try-outs at all.  In some places, local gaming communities or the FLGS itself has historically foot all the bills for trying to grow the hobby or move product.  So... I'm still falling on the side of "bring it on, WotC."


----------



## Tortoise (Aug 30, 2010)

So I gather nobody from WoTC has dropped in to help clarify this and nobody else has any further details about what is actually on some of the cards?


Oh well.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 30, 2010)

Canis said:


> Fair enough. I just felt the need to provide some counterpoint.
> 
> I, however, think a $3-6 expenditure to "rent" a game system beats the holy heck out of not having a rental option at all. And, as others have pointed out, it helps out the proprietor of the FLGS.
> 
> WotC doesn't need to provide these try-outs at all. In some places, local gaming communities or the FLGS itself has historically foot all the bills for trying to grow the hobby or move product. So... I'm still falling on the side of "bring it on, WotC."




No WotC doesn't need to provide these try-outs... but please let's not pretend that this doesn't benefit WotC in any way either... this is marketing, not altruism.


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 30, 2010)

Canis said:


> Let's assume a pack is somewhere around $3.
> 
> $3 won't buy you a decent cup of coffee in a lot of places.
> 
> Being out that much to test out a new game?  Trivial.  If you don't like it, you say to yourself, "Well, I learned something useful today, and I'm only out $3."  That's a win.




Politicians want my vote too, but they don't have the audacity to charge me for the fliers I get in the mail.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 30, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> Politicians want my vote too, but they don't have the audacity to charge me for the fliers I get in the mail.



Terrible analogy.

Trying out a game is more like seeing in advance what life would be like with them in office *before* electing them.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 31, 2010)

> Trying out a game is more like seeing in advance what life would be like with them in office before electing them.




You're right.

But, still, if you give me $3 and come to my house, I will totally run any game you might be interested in, and then you can either buy it from me, or not.

That applies to anyone reading this thread, by the way.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> /snip
> 
> It would be like the 3.5 splatbook arms race all over again.




What 3.5 splatbook arms race?

Nearly every new class in a 3.5 splatbook was weaker than core.  It was only when you allowed core classes to use the extra material (read clerics and wizards) that the power creep happened.  And, all that really happened was the strongest classes got stronger.

If you actually used the new classes, there was almost no power creep.

And, you're presuming that the power cards will make any sort of significant difference to the power level of the character, rather than having a group effect.  Since we haven't actually seen the cards, that's just an assumption.

You're also presuming that this is a test bed for whatever comes next.  While, yes, they did use SW Saga to test out 4e, there are also a barrel full of products that are just one off sorts of things and not linked to the next thing.

Now, if, in the future, 5e is released and requires collectable cards, then you are perfectly in your rights to complain.  But, piddling all over a product that some people apparently are looking forward to is just so negative.  Vote with your wallet, but, why piddle on other people's fun?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> Politicians want my vote too, but they don't have the audacity to charge me for the fliers I get in the mail.




Maybe I've had a different experience than others, but typically whenever I've gone to a gameday or played a demo of a game, my goal was to have fun. If you really feel it is solely something you are suffering through in order to receive advertising, I think the problem goes a lot deeper than the price of a few boosters.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Maybe I've had a different experience than others, but typically whenever I've gone to a gameday or played a demo of a game, my goal was to have fun. If you really feel it is solely something you are suffering through in order to receive advertising, I think the problem goes a lot deeper than the price of a few boosters.




I do show up to have fun. When 4E launched I went to the game day event and played in two sessions and had a great time in each of them. A crowded store full of players trying out the new game in town is already a win for both the store and the game company. When I was ready to buy my books I went to the FLGS to get them instead of ordering online. 

Selling supplemental product as a prerequisite to trying out a new game sends a poor message. It isn't that the amount of money is such a burden but rather the implication that the product itself is insufficient to provide so much as a single session of play without the need for supplemental product. That's a huge warning sign that just screams " Beware-money pit ahead."


----------



## Scribble (Aug 31, 2010)

Also don't forget it's an incentive for the store to hold the event in the first place.

Sure, demoing product is always a good idea, but on the store side- 

The store probably has to have extra manpower on duty to watch that many people and still mind the register.  That's an added cost.

The store has to make space to hold the games. That's an added cost.

There are a lot of people who will show up for the event use the store and copies of the game, then go home and buy the game on line. Added cost with no benefit.

All this adds up to lack of incentive to hold a game day. Why spend all that extra time/money when it's not going to net you any profit?

Soooo... queue WoTC who has announced that they think FLGS and FLGS "culture" are important to the hobby. Lack of incentive for those FLGS to promote the "culture" is a problem.

How to fix that problem? Provide some sort of incentive for the FLGS to hold the events.

In this case, the incentive comes in the form of packs of cards the players buy before participating in the events.


So sure, if you're really upset that it costs 3 bux to play in a game have at ye.

But I'm giving credit to WoTC where I think it's due- Instead of just joining the "Oh Woe is me!" crowd bitching about the hobby dying, and FLGSs being a thing of the past lately they seem to have been doing a LOT to help promote FLGS and the hobby overall.  

I think 3 bucks is worth investing in the growth/health of my hobby. If you don't that's cool- but saying it's just a money grab or something is kind of not really thinking things through in my opinion.  WoTC clearly has a desire to promote the FLGS and health of the hobby, and not only that but a clear plan to do so.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 31, 2010)

Scribble said:


> But I'm giving credit to WoTC where I think it's due- Instead of just joining the "Oh Woe is me!" crowd bitching about the hobby dying, and FLGSs being a thing of the past lately they seem to have been doing a LOT to help promote FLGS and the hobby overall.




I'm not worried about the hobby, it will be just fine.



Scribble said:


> I think 3 bucks is worth investing in the growth/health of my hobby. If you don't that's cool- but saying it's just a money grab or something is kind of not really thinking things through in my opinion. WoTC clearly has a desire to promote the FLGS and health of the hobby, and not only that but a clear plan to do so.




The hobby itself is fine, and WOTC is concerned about the _industry_ not the hobby. 

The health of the hobby? Ha! Those truly concerned about the health of the hobby don't turn it into a collectible feeding frenzy just to get it to produce more revenue.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 31, 2010)

Scribble, I'd love to give you xp, but I cannot yet.



ExploderWizard said:


> Selling supplemental product as a prerequisite to trying out a new game sends a poor message. It isn't that the amount of money is such a burden but rather the implication that the product itself is insufficient to provide so much as a single session of play without the need for supplemental product. That's a huge warning sign that just screams " Beware-money pit ahead."




The sense of scale here is appalling.  $6 bucks was a warning sign of a money pit... somewhere around 1950.

I know how this is going to sound, but I intend no offense to you personally.  This is a broader problem that I see a lot.  It's simply emblematic of how utterly spoiled PnP gamers are.  There is no "hobbyist" in the world who can get away with spending less money than the PnP gamer.  When I was a kid, I spent more money on comic books and baseball cards than I did on gaming, and that's when comic books were _cheap_.  Heck, I spent more on model building, and I wasn't very good at that.

Many very mainstream hobbies cost far more per hour spent than PnP gaming, and the companies making those products are getting paid by 10x as many people, to boot.



ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not worried about the hobby, it will be just fine.



If not the hobby as a whole, how about FLGS culture?  The FLGS is not an example of a thriving business model right now, and could certainly do with getting people in the habit of both foot traffic and opening their wallet.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 31, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think 3 bucks is worth investing in the growth/health of my hobby.




I don't view it that way. I buy based on what I like and dislike and am willing to shell out for. Trying to support WotC with my dollars, irrespective of what they're putting out, is self-defeating in the long run; good products will succeed without my charity, and bad products should fail as quickly and decisively as possible so that WotC can dump them and move on.

The hobby gets plenty of my disposable cash. I have over a thousand dollars sunk into DDM alone. Granted, most of those purchases were online singles, not direct from WotC, but feeding the secondary market drives demand for the primary. I'm already gearing up to drop a bunch more money on Lords of Madness and Essentials; I feel no obligation to pony up extra in order to be a good gaming citizen.


----------



## Jor-El (Aug 31, 2010)

I can't help but feel if WoTC really cared about the FLGS, they'd offer them free boosters to use in the demos. Like they do the adventure packs and tokens. Although it used to be minis. 

The danger in the current plan is for the poor FLGS that adds the extra staff and orders the extra product...only to have lackluster sales and turnout, which then makes them less likely to participate in the future. 

The FLGS is doing the marketing and sales pitch for WoTC, and taking all the risk/gamble. 

But, such a scenario might be such a corner case as to not matter in the grand scheme. I don't know...it just seems like there'd be a better way to do this if you're trying to get someone hooked in as a new customer. 

Whatever happened to "try this sample and see if you like!"


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 31, 2010)

Canis said:


> Terrible analogy.
> 
> Trying out a game is more like seeing in advance what life would be like with them in office *before* electing them.





I don't use terrible analogies, just ones that others don't agree with.

But just for you, here's another one: when my satelite/cable provider wants me to subscribe to HBO, they give me a free weekend of HBO, they do NOT give me access to HBO then bill me for it, not even $6.


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 31, 2010)

Hussar said:


> What 3.5 splatbook arms race?
> 
> Nearly every new class in a 3.5 splatbook was weaker than core.  It was only when you allowed core classes to use the extra material (read clerics and wizards) that the power creep happened.  And, all that really happened was the strongest classes got stronger.
> 
> If you actually used the new classes, there was almost no power creep.




Who said anything about new core classes? Splatbooks had feats and PrCs and they most definately got progressively more powerful as the 3.5 era went on. They constituted the "arms race" to which I am referring.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> And, you're presuming that the power cards will make any sort of significant difference to the power level of the character, rather than having a group effect.  Since we haven't actually seen the cards, that's just an assumption.
> 
> You're also presuming that this is a test bed for whatever comes next.  While, yes, they did use SW Saga to test out 4e, there are also a barrel full of products that are just one off sorts of things and not linked to the next thing.




And you are presuming the opposite. No one in the marketplace has seen them yet. Why is it ok for one person to presume one thing and another to presume the opposite? Where you see a barrel full of one-off products, I see a barrel full of market-tested (and presumably passed over) products.

And yes, I presume it will lead to a power boost. Maybe not for just the owner of the card, but an overall positive boost. Otherwise, I can't see how a product that would have a net negative or a neutral effect would sell. "Buy these cards, they might get your character killed, or at best, have no real effect at all!"



> Now, if, in the future, 5e is released and requires collectable cards, then you are perfectly in your rights to complain.  But, piddling all over a product that some people apparently are looking forward to is just so negative.  Vote with your wallet, but, why piddle on other people's fun?




Well, I'm not so much complaining, as voicing my opinion. And I have been voting with my wallet ever since 2008 or so. I don't care if others love it, more power to them. What I *am *saying, however, is that I was not happy with the direction WotC took D&D with 4th ed, and from what I see they are moving farther and farther away from a model that would win me back as a customer. That's all.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 31, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not worried about the hobby, it will be just fine.
> 
> The hobby itself is fine, and WOTC is concerned about the _industry_ not the hobby.




You don't see how the two are related?

Sure- you can buy one book and play forever. That's a great thing about RPGs.

But we also like new stuff. We like buying books (in a weird sort of way though...)  That new stuff takes money.  The "industry" makes that money.

Just like any hobby out there there are industries surrounding them where fans of said hobby can get new stuff they enjoy and ultimately build their hobby.

The hobby supports the industry and the industry supports the hobby- it's a circle. The circle of gaming. Queue African inspired music, and Elton John.




> The health of the hobby? Ha! Those truly concerned about the health of the hobby don't turn it into a collectible feeding frenzy just to get it to produce more revenue.




Hyperbole much?

You don't like card games- ok cool. Other people like collectible games, and the card aspects. 

Just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's just a "feeding frenzy to produce more revenue" anymore then anything else game companies sell.

You just don't particularity like that product line.



Dausuul said:


> I don't view it that way. I buy based on what I like and dislike and am willing to shell out for. Trying to support WotC with my dollars, irrespective of what they're putting out, is self-defeating in the long run; good products will succeed without my charity, and bad products should fail as quickly and decisively as possible so that WotC can dump them and move on.
> 
> The hobby gets plenty of my disposable cash. I have over a thousand dollars sunk into DDM alone. Granted, most of those purchases were online singles, not direct from WotC, but feeding the secondary market drives demand for the primary. I'm already gearing up to drop a bunch more money on Lords of Madness and Essentials; I feel no obligation to pony up extra in order to be a good gaming citizen.





That's fine. Like I said, I'm not arguing we should all go in everyday and buy a pack of cards. I'm simply saying that a few dollars to buy a pack of cards every so often at an event  isn't a big deal to me particularly because it ultimately in my opinion helps the hobby in a big way.

I think in this case it's not just a case of good things succeed and bad things fail. There are a a lot of things out there competing for the gaming space- things that are easier to get into the TTRPGs.  To survive they have to highlight the strengths of the game.  I agree with WoTC that one of the strengths is the social aspect, and this is seen in the FLGS.

Some things fail simply because they're lost in the jumble of more flashy competition.



Jor-El said:


> I can't help but feel if WoTC really cared about the FLGS, they'd offer them free boosters to use in the demos. Like they do the adventure packs and tokens. Although it used to be minis.
> 
> The danger in the current plan is for the poor FLGS that adds the extra staff and orders the extra product...only to have lackluster sales and turnout, which then makes them less likely to participate in the future.




Sure- there's a possible downside to every plan. But I think there's more incentive for a game store to even consider having a game day when the owner knows there's at least somewhat of a large chance he will profit from it from the start.

And it's a model I believe they've been using for years now for the card games.  (As a result you see the store owners throwing a TON of card game events.)



Would people argue against a convention charging money for an attendance badge? 

It's a similar concept.  WoTC believes the in store events and FLGS help drive the hobby and industry. The events cost money, the FLGSs are loosing money. 

WoTC seems to have a pretty good plan of action.

If you don't agree that the FLGS is important or that the in store events are good for the game/hobby/industry- that's fine.   HEy you don't even have to agree it's the best plan of action...

But again- calling this just a money grab is kind of ignoring all the other aspects. 

That's all.


----------



## demetri0us (Aug 31, 2010)

I think it's quite wise of WotC to find a product like this and bring it to market. AND do it in such a way that it's actually useful. These cards appear to appeal to both players and DM's, and seem to allow WotC to have a revenue stream that might be sustainable, for a while anyway. Best of all? Nobody has to buy them to play. Or you could buy one and use just that. Or three people could pool their cards when they come to a table. Etc.

Good work I say.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> I don't use terrible analogies, just ones that others don't agree with.
> 
> But just for you, here's another one: when my satelite/cable provider wants me to subscribe to HBO, they give me a free weekend of HBO, they do NOT give me access to HBO then bill me for it, not even $6.




They DO rent you a cable box... 

And if you were going into some other guys place in order to preview the HBO I'm pretty sure that guy would want something out of it.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> I don't use terrible analogies, just ones that others don't agree with.



I don't have enough data to make a firm judgment, but with this thread as evidence, you are 2 for 2 on bad analogies.  When the two things you are comparing are actually wildly different from each other in all their details, that's pretty much the definition of a bad analogy.  The devil, after all, is in the details.



> But just for you, here's another one: when my satelite/cable provider wants me to subscribe to HBO, they give me a free weekend of HBO, they do NOT give me access to HBO then bill me for it, not even $6.




They also sell a mainstream product to orders of magnitude more people, and it doesn't cost the service provider a ton of set up, extra hours of paid labor, and all the things that running free games cost an FLGS.

They push a button from a remote location and your cable box is allowed access to that content.  From what I understand, this isn't even reflected individually in their contracts with content providers.  Contrast that with Scribble's list of what goes into these things just at the local level, to say nothing of the coordination at WotC.  Those public outreach programs have to justify their salaries and distribution, too.

Your analogy will be fair the day we all have set-top or table-top boxes that allow us to receive WotC game try-outs as software demos instead of physical objects that have to be run by people at remote locations.

Y'all want all the benefits of being a hobbyist AND all the benefits of being mainstream.  It doesn't work that way in the real world.  There are financial pinches as a result of treating it that way, mostly on the smaller guys, in this case, the FLGS.  But I'm sure Hasbro frequently scratches their head about the business model here, as well.  They're selling a boutique product but their customer base has a large segment of people who want to pretend it's mass market.

And most economists still use a "rational consumer" model.  That's hysterical.


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 31, 2010)

Scribble said:


> They DO rent you a cable box...
> 
> And if you were going into some other guys place in order to preview the HBO I'm pretty sure that guy would want something out of it.




You mean like how sports bars charge their customers extra to watch football games that are on expanded cable/satelite packages?

oh wait, most don't.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> You mean like how sports bars charge their customers extra to watch football games that are on expanded cable/satelite packages?
> 
> oh wait, most don't.




Sure... But then again go in there sit at a table, watch the game, and don't order anything.   They love it when you do that.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> You mean like how sports bars charge their customers extra to watch football games that are on expanded cable/satelite packages?
> 
> oh wait, most don't.




You don't think adding those satellite packages to their costs increased the price of food and drink?

Trust me, you're paying for it.


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 31, 2010)

Canis said:


> I don't have enough data to make a firm judgment, but with this thread as evidence, you are 2 for 2 on bad analogies.  When the two things you are comparing are actually wildly different from each other in all their details, that's pretty much the definition of a bad analogy.  The devil, after all, is in the details.




Like I said, just analogies you don't agree with. If every single detail of the two things being compared were identical, they wouldn't be analogies, now would they?


How about this, for a _comparison _(which is not, you know, an analogy):

Gameday GM at a FLGS: "Come in and try out a demo of the latest version of the post-apocolyptic RPG, Darwin's World, it's totally free!"

Other Gameday GM at the FLGS across town: "Come in and try out a demo of the latest version of the post-apocolyptic RPG, Gamma World, it'll only cost you two $3 boosters!"

There, now all of Scribble's costs are factored in. The makers of both DW and GW want me to buy their game, both have persuaded the FLGS to host a gameday event to get people to try out their game, both stores are out the time and effort and other intangibles required to host an event, but one company wants to charge $6/player to play what ammounts to a sales pitch.


----------



## Twowolves (Aug 31, 2010)

Canis said:


> You don't think adding those satellite packages to their costs increased the price of food and drink?
> 
> Trust me, you're paying for it.




If I go in on game day and order a beer, it doesn't cost me any more than it does on Tuesday night. 

I'm sure they charge enough money in drinks and food to cover their costs, but I can sit and watch a game nonetheless, even if I order a glass of water.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> There, now all of Scribble's costs are factored in. The makers of both DW and GW want me to buy their game, both have persuaded the FLGS to host a gameday event to get people to try out their game, both stores are out the time and effort and other intangibles required to host an event, but one company wants to charge $6/player to play what ammounts to a sales pitch.




Yeah... The difference I see though is one store has everyone there foots the bill, and potentially doesn't recoup any costs, or not a lot of costs.

Either they had top pay extra staff, keep the store open longer, use room that could have held product, or people just showed up, played then bought the game on amazon.

So next time he thinks... Why am I doing this again?

The other guy has more of a chance to recoup costs, and therefore more of a n incentive to do it in the first place, and in the future.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> If I go in on game day and order a beer, it doesn't cost me any more than it does on Tuesday night.
> 
> I'm sure they charge enough money in drinks and food to cover their costs, but I can sit and watch a game nonetheless, even if I order a glass of water.




If you are comfortable with having other people foot the bill for an entertainment you are also enjoying, that's your call.

In my experience, the service staff gets to know people who do things like that.  So it's your call, your karma, and your "water."

EDIT:
Scribble already addressed your other post.  The FLGS is a player in this scenario.  Considering only your costs and WotC's costs is not representative.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> If I go in on game day and order a beer, it doesn't cost me any more than it does on Tuesday night.




That's because you're paying a premium on Tuesday night too.


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (Aug 31, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> You mean like how sports bars charge their customers extra to watch football games that are on expanded cable/satelite packages?
> 
> oh wait, most don't.




You do have to pay an additional cover if it's a pay-per-view event.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 1, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> when my satelite/cable provider wants me to subscribe to HBO, they give me a free weekend of HBO, they do NOT give me access to HBO then bill me for it, not even $6.



Bad example. Cable companies practically invented introductory pricing. You know, they want you to subscribe to something, so they say "for six months we'll only charge you $1 a month for HBO. After that, we'll charge you the $11 everyone else pays." I see that all the time. Heck, ISPs, cell phone service providers, land line phone companies, magazines, and even the whole a cable/satellite package can be priced like that.

This can go on all year. Yes, lots of people provide free product when they want you to buy something. (Heck, drug dealers are notorious for it.) But lots of people provide something at a discount instead. Their both valid forms advertising. One isn't inherently better than the other, it depends on the product and the target audience.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 1, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> But just for you, here's another one: when my satelite/cable provider wants me to subscribe to HBO, they give me a free weekend of HBO, they do NOT give me access to HBO then bill me for it, not even $6.



And what's their marginal cost of doing this? That's right, it's essentially nil.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 1, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Maybe I've had a different experience than others, but typically whenever I've gone to a gameday or played a demo of a game, my goal was to have fun. If you really feel it is solely something you are suffering through in order to receive advertising, I think the problem goes a lot deeper than the price of a few boosters.




This is irrelevant to the point of a gameday. I am not WotC's friend they are a corporation I purchase items from, I am not my FLGS's friend they are a shop I purchase items from... The gameday serves a clear purpose for both, to entice me to buy WotC products from this particular store. I will purchase those products if I enjoy the game... I won't if I don't... I also won't purchase products to try a demo, it has nothing to do with suffering through something, since that level of discomfort is not necessary for me to decide that, with all the rpg's I have and that are available, GW is not far enough above the bar for me to spend my money on. I work for my money and I expect a company to convince me to want to give it to them for their products. Plain and simple.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 1, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Also don't forget it's an incentive for the store to hold the event in the first place.
> 
> Sure, demoing product is always a good idea, but on the store side-
> 
> ...




This is the cost of doing business... no one forces a store to hold a gameday, so I would hope that by now with all the free D&D gamedays a store knows whether it makes up for this added cost or not... that's what running a business is about... as for "incentives"... I'll discuss that below.



Scribble said:


> All this adds up to lack of incentive to hold a game day. Why spend all that extra time/money when it's not going to net you any profit?




Because you get to sell products a week or more before anyone who doesn't can. And honestly there have been numerous posts by FLGS owners who have stated this has greatly increased their business.



Scribble said:


> Soooo... queue WoTC who has announced that they think FLGS and FLGS "culture" are important to the hobby. Lack of incentive for those FLGS to promote the "culture" is a problem.
> 
> How to fix that problem? Provide some sort of incentive for the FLGS to hold the events.




See above...



Scribble said:


> In this case, the incentive comes in the form of packs of cards the players buy before participating in the events.




No, again... see above.



Scribble said:


> So sure, if you're really upset that it costs 3 bux to play in a game have at ye.
> 
> But I'm giving credit to WoTC where I think it's due- Instead of just joining the "Oh Woe is me!" crowd bitching about the hobby dying, and FLGSs being a thing of the past lately they seem to have been doing a LOT to help promote FLGS and the hobby overall.
> 
> I think 3 bucks is worth investing in the growth/health of my hobby. If you don't that's cool- but saying it's just a money grab or something is kind of not really thinking things through in my opinion. WoTC clearly has a desire to promote the FLGS and health of the hobby, and not only that but a clear plan to do so.




Yeah, because forcing people to spend $6 on a product they know nothing about and may not like will do wonders for the "hobby". Also because there is no other way to spend $6 and support the hobby... while still actually getting something you know will be useful to you.  ... wait actually I listed a few in an earlier post.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 1, 2010)

> Yeah, because forcing people to spend $6 on a product they know nothing about and may not like will do wonders for the "hobby". Also because there is no other way to spend $6 and support the hobby... while still actually getting something you know will be useful to you.  ... wait actually I listed a few in an earlier post.




I regularly spend a heck of a lot more than 6 bucks on a product I know about as much about as a new RPG - it's called movies.  You can read reviews, you can watch previews, but, until you pony up your money (where I live now, a movie is 20 bucks at the theater), you have no idea if you're going to like the movie or not.

Where's the difference?  You have exactly the same amount (and quite possibly more) information regarding a new RPG as a new movie.  At least you get a souvenir from your game day, even if you hate the game.

I guess that's my real issue here.  "Know nothing about"?  Really?  If I know enough to go to a FLGS for a game day, I'm probably not some schlep off the street.  I've probably done at least a little bit in the hobby.  Or, I'm coming with someone who knows something about the hobby.  Fresh in off the street and willing to sit down and play cold for two or three hours is probably a pretty small minority.

The notion that I'm going to be totally unprepared for a game demo is a bit of a stretch.  Most likely I've either come with friends who have some knowledge of the game and have sold me on the idea, or I've heard about it on the web or whatnot and have some basic idea of what the game is about.

As I said, it would be like expecting people to go see movies without knowing more than the movie's title.  Sure, I'm sure some people do, but, I doubt strongly they are anything other than a small minority.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 1, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I regularly spend a heck of a lot more than 6 bucks on a product I know about as much about as a new RPG - it's called movies. You can read reviews, you can watch previews, but, until you pony up your money (where I live now, a movie is 20 bucks at the theater), you have no idea if you're going to like the movie or not.
> 
> Where's the difference? You have exactly the same amount (and quite possibly more) information regarding a new RPG as a new movie. At least you get a souvenir from your game day, even if you hate the game.
> 
> ...




Well honestly, one of my FLGS's is a comic store and during it's gamedays for D&D I did see people who had never played D&D before come in, see the setup and give it a try... anecdotal and all yes... but gamedays (especially essentials now) are actually geared towards people new to the hobby... so it is possible. 

Also, IMO, whether I'd spend $6 on something I know a little or alot about isn't necessarily the point either... it's the fact that this $6 is a worthless purchase without the $39+ game... which I don't get to demo until I've already invested money into it.


----------



## Wicht (Sep 1, 2010)

I think those saying they would gladly pay $6 to play in a demo version of a game are being honest but also projecting a bit. Not everyone is a hardcore WotC fan and in a new game demo you want to make access to the demo as easy as possible to cast the net as broadly as possible. At the outset, the $6 fee narrows the net considerably and thus lessens the impact of the demo opportunity. While $6 may sound like only a small amount to you, there are those like me who have to watch every penny. Added to this the fact that I have 4 kids that might like to do the demo and you've suddenly turned it into a $30 expense for me. So sure, the $6 demo might cast a net wide enough to draw you in, but it would exclude me. And that's just bad marketing. I agree with whomever said that the smart move would be to _give _the stores some sample cards and allow those to be _given _away as free samples to go along with the game. That creates an experience that right from the beginning appeals to everyone, thus making the net pretty broad.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 1, 2010)

Imaro said:


> This is the cost of doing business... no one forces a store to hold a gameday, so I would hope that by now with all the free D&D gamedays a store knows whether it makes up for this added cost or not... that's what running a business is about... as for "incentives"... I'll discuss that below.
> 
> 
> Because you get to sell products a week or more before anyone who doesn't can. And honestly there have been numerous posts by FLGS owners who have stated this has greatly increased their business.




Yes- I've seen them too, and was never indicating it didn't work at all. I'm just saying that this is part of the plan at increasing that business even more.

You don't have to agree with it- I really don't care. My entire point was that there's more to it then simply WoTC wants money.

It's a clear plan of action on WoTCs part to support the FLGS. 

Letting them sell material early is part of it. Game days are part of it, and the 6 dollar buy in helps support it.




> Yeah, because forcing people to spend $6 on a product they know nothing about and may not like will do wonders for the "hobby". Also because there is no other way to spend $6 and support the hobby... while still actually getting something you know will be useful to you.  ... wait actually I listed a few in an earlier post.




No one's forcing you to do anything. The store is holding a voluntary event, and there is a buy in to take part. If you want to take part, you pay the 6 dollars - and you even get a pack of cards out of it.

If you don't- then don't buy in.

Same as if you decide to go to Gencon or any other number of conventions. They all have buy ins, and the buy ins help support the whole thing. 



			
				Wicht said:
			
		

> I agree with whomever said that the smart move would be to give the stores some sample cards and allow those to be given away as free samples to go along with the game. That creates an experience that right from the beginning appeals to everyone, thus making the net pretty broad.




Sure- thats a good plan to get people into the stores... But it does nothing to really give the store a guaranteed income from the people who take part.  Selling the cards creates kind of a safety net for the store.

It's a known issue right now that people are routinely going to physical stores,  demoing the product there, asking the store owner questions about it, and getting the tactile experience, then leaving to buy it on line.

Sure- as Imaro indicates it's part of "the cost of doing business," but if WoTC really believes that brick and mortar game stores are very important to the industry/hobby then they can't just sit around and hope things work out.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 1, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Yes- I've seen them too, and was never indicating it didn't work at all. I'm just saying that this is part of the plan at increasing that business even more.
> 
> You don't have to agree with it- I really don't care. My entire point was that there's more to it then simply WoTC wants money.
> 
> ...




Well IMO it's not a "clear plan of action on WoTCs part to support the FLGS", it's about WotC selling their product, particularly GW stuff and not about "supporting" the FLGS. Otherwise give options that would cast the FLGS in a more favorable light and encourage repeat visits such as the purchasing a $6 gift card for the store, or $6+ purchase in the store period allows one to participate. I feel like you are trying to paint this as some type of altruistic, selfless act by WotC, and I don't buy it. 

IMO this is about creating an incentive to buy the GW game by strongly encouraging anyone who wants to try it out to purchase compnents they can't use otherwise.

I'll put it like this, I wouldn't be happy to buy 2 boosters of property cards, or plastic hotels, to demo monopoly before I had the game or knew if I enjoyed it or not... and this is the same premise.

Especially after I played it and didn't like it (Sorry I find Monopoly extremely boring and tedious...)


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 1, 2010)

Imaro said:


> This is irrelevant to the point of a gameday. I am not WotC's friend they are a corporation I purchase items from, I am not my FLGS's friend they are a shop I purchase items from... The gameday serves a clear purpose for both, to entice me to buy WotC products from this particular store. I will purchase those products if I enjoy the game... I won't if I don't... I also won't purchase products to try a demo, it has nothing to do with suffering through something, since that level of discomfort is not necessary for me to decide that, with all the rpg's I have and that are available, GW is not far enough above the bar for me to spend my money on. I work for my money and I expect a company to convince me to want to give it to them for their products. Plain and simple.




Again, I find this bizarre - I go to Gamedays to play games, and have fun. I mean, I get that if there is a price to do so, it might turn you away. Fair enough. I don't think charging for the boosters is the best idea as far as marketing goes. 

But the idea that a price of entry is some sort of mark against you - that they are "forcing people" to spend this money - is completely absurd. 

I can understand someone saying that they think less people will attend Game Day events if there is a charge, and that it is thus, a bad idea. 

But some people seem to be going a step farther and acting like there is some active offense to this, or that WotC is somehow ripping people off or forcing them to fund their own advertising, which is just a bizarre view of the situation.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 1, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Same as if you decide to go to Gencon or any other number of conventions. They all have buy ins, and the buy ins help support the whole thing.




Bingo.

No one is saying that going to a con should be free, and charging for the opportunity to check out new product makes cons evil/uninviting/etc.  What's a con but a FLGS game day writ VERY large?


----------



## Imaro (Sep 1, 2010)

Canis said:


> Bingo.
> 
> No one is saying that going to a con should be free, and charging for the opportunity to check out new product makes cons evil/uninviting/etc. What's a con but a FLGS game day writ VERY large?




And I would have no problem paying the FLGS (either in product I want or directly for space) to play... What I don't want to do is have to buy something I have no need for... unless I spend another $40... as dictated by WotC in order to play. There's a slightly different dynamic going on here and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 1, 2010)

Imaro said:


> And I would have no problem paying the FLGS (either in product I want or directly for space) to play... What I don't want to do is have to buy something I have no need for... unless I spend another $40... as dictated by WotC in order to play. There's a slightly different dynamic going on here and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.




So, if the FLGS charged you $6 to play and then gave you two free booster packs when you sat down, would you be OK with that?


----------



## Imaro (Sep 1, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So, if the FLGS charged you $6 to play and then gave you two free booster packs when you sat down, would you be OK with that?




Not if it's charging because WotC mandated or strongly suggested that I "purchase" said bosters. I'm not 3, playing word games doesn't change what's really happening IMO.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 1, 2010)

That's a purely semantic difference that you're fluffing up into some sort of moral boundary.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 1, 2010)

Canis said:


> That's a purely semantic difference that you're fluffing up into some sort of moral boundary.




No it boils down to the fact that I don't want to pay a company to demo their products... but I have no problem paying the shop for it's time and manpower in making that possible... so no, it's not a semantic difference if WotC is still requiring a purchase of their boosters in order to play, I'm sorry you can't see the difference.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 1, 2010)

Fine.  It's a very small difference that depends more on the margin on the cards than anything else.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 1, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Also, IMO, whether I'd spend $6 on something I know a little or alot about isn't necessarily the point either... it's the fact that this $6 is a worthless purchase without the $39+ game... which I don't get to demo until I've already invested money into it.



This is getting strange. You don't mind paying $6 to the store to play a game. But you do mind paying $6 to both Wizards and the store to play a game and get a tangible item you might not want if you don't like and purchase the game. 



Wicht said:


> So sure, the $6 demo might cast a net wide enough to draw you in, but it would exclude me. And that's just bad marketing.



I don't like it either. Part of my problem with some of the debate is the idea that implication that booster are somehow unethical.



Imaro said:


> IMO this is about creating an incentive to buy the GW game by strongly encouraging anyone who wants to try it out to purchase compnents they can't use otherwise.



Components that are easy to dispose of.



Imaro said:


> No it boils down to the fact that I don't want to pay a company to demo their products... but I have no problem paying the shop for it's time and manpower in making that possible... so no, it's not a semantic difference if WotC is still requiring a purchase of their boosters in order to play, I'm sorry you can't see the difference.



You are aware that when you buy the booster pack for $3, the store gets some of that money? The store isn't selling them to you at a loss or at cost. So you are actually paying both Wizards and the store.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 1, 2010)

Generally WoTC sends lots of support material to these things.

Free adventures, free characters, minis, maps, etc...

Mandating a buy in of a pack of cards instead of letting the store decide for itself puts everyone on a level playing field.

A shop that decides to charge a pack of cards in order to help offset costs of game days doesn't have to compete with a store that doesn't sell them.

Saying all it is, is WoTC forcing us to pay for cards is in my opinion just not looking at the facts, and not thinking about how businesses actually operate in the world.

Some people don't want to pay for a pack of cards to try a game out... I don't have any issue with that.

Don't play in the game days.  

I'm also sure there will be plenty of stores that will demo a product for you outside of the game days (my local store does all the time.)


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 1, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Mandating a buy in of a pack of cards instead of letting the store decide for itself puts everyone on a level playing field.




  Actually, doesn't the store get to decide for itself? The blurb simply recommends purchase by the players; it doesn't require it. (And even if it did, it would probably be near-impossible to enforce.)

  It simply means that WotC won't be providing the cards. That means the store can either follow their recommendations and have players buy it, provide the cards themselves and absorb the cost, or somewhere in-between (provide a few boosters for each table and charge players a small fee, making up the difference by having several sets of players at each table throughout the day).

  Looking back over that blurb, what's interesting is that each table requires a copy of the game--which is similarly not provided. That could be more difficult, since it means each FLGS is going to have to find a bunch of early adopters or provide games out of their own stock, which will probably be a partial or total loss after being used. You could get away with the former with D&D easily enough--but for Gamma World, that may be more difficult.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 1, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Actually, doesn't the store get to decide for itself? The blurb simply recommends purchase by the players; it doesn't require it. (And even if it did, it would probably be near-impossible to enforce.)
> 
> It simply means that WotC won't be providing the cards. That means the store can either follow their recommendations and have players buy it, provide the cards themselves and absorb the cost, or somewhere in-between (provide a few boosters for each table and charge players a small fee, making up the difference by having several sets of players at each table throughout the day).




Huh- yeah I missed that. 

I think it would be better to kind of "mandate" the buy in, but true- how would they enforce that really... Aren't any WoTC cops around. 


Well there you go... Best of both worlds.  WoTC recommends stores sell cards. Stores like selling stuff.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 2, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> I don't like it either. Part of my problem with some of the debate is the idea that implication that booster are somehow unethical.




Booster packs and CCG's themselves are in no way unethical IMHO. I was a mad INWO player in the mid 90's and had a lot of fun with it. 

They do not need need to come anywhere near anything calling itself a roleplaying game though. Doing so changes the nature of the game and supporting such games is not "the hobby" I wish to support.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 2, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> Bad example.




DUDE!

That wasn't my post! 

I can look like a jerk all on my own, thanks, I don't need much help.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 2, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> DUDE!
> 
> That wasn't my post!



I'm really sorry. That was completely and totally unintentional. It should be fixed now. 

I have a nasty tendency to hit the "multiquote" button as I read a thread. When I posted my response, I think I kept the wrong original quote. I was going to reply to you, but then I thought better of it. 

Again, I'm very sorry. Totally my fault.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 2, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> This is getting strange. You don't mind paying $6 to the store to play a game. But you do mind paying $6 to both Wizards and the store to play a game and get a tangible item you might not want if you don't like and purchase the game.




What I don't like is WotC shunting off the cost of demoing it's product to the FLGS and customers... especially now that it's come up they aren't even providing free demo games. So what exactly is WotC providing for this demo that isn't being paid for by the store or customer?

EDIT: And the fact that some people are trying to make WotC out as some type of altruistic angels who are only trying to help the FLGS.



fanboy2000 said:


> Components that are easy to dispose of.




I'm sorry I don't understand how this is relevant at all... please expound. 



fanboy2000 said:


> You are aware that when you buy the booster pack for $3, the store gets some of that money? The store isn't selling them to you at a loss or at cost. So you are actually paying both Wizards and the store.




Yes I am aware of this... again, what does it have to do with the point I am making that I do not want to pay WotC to demo their products? You do realize that paying the store directly would put that $6 towards them right? Or buying a gift card would probably attract a wider market, since people will be able to spend it on what they want, right?


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (Sep 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> EDIT: And the fact that some people are trying to make WotC out as some type of altruistic angels who are only trying to help the FLGS.




This is what is known as a Straw man fallacy.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 2, 2010)

Dr. Confoundo said:


> This is what is known as a Straw man fallacy.




No it's not, a little hyperbole on my part perhaps... but there have been claims in this threadt  that WotC is doing this (selling boosters) to help the FLGS, when in fact we now learn that WotC has saddled the FLGS with all the costs of running this... including providing the actual game.  So no, it's not a strawman fallacy.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Sep 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yes I am aware of this... again, what does it have to do with the point I am making that I do not want to pay WotC to demo their products?



This is where we have such a disconnect.  Everything is binary with you.  Either we're helping the store OR we're paying WotC.  There is no allowance in your philosophy for the fact that both are occurring.



> You do realize that paying the store directly would put that $6 towards them right?



Sure.  But without the big name product association, all the advertising WotC is doing for the program, the store locator, and so on, which all should be increasing foot traffic to the individual stores, you'd have far fewer people.

Would you rather take $6 from 2 people or $1.50 from 10 people?  The fact you're also passing more money onto WotC doesn't detract from the fact that your profit increased by 25%.  And you did what you are good at, running the game locally, while WotC did what they were good at, mass advertising and an organized web presence.

And all this says nothing about the simple fact of getting people used to opening their wallets in a given location.  I think people forget how powerful that can be.



> Or buying a gift card would probably attract a wider market, since people will be able to spend it on what they want, right?



Now THAT would be insanely altruistic, far more so than anything I've suggested WotC is doing.  Free money to potentially spend on someone else's product?

I think they're doing a good thing (helping FLGS's) because it also is good for them in terms of growing the hobby at a grassroots, local level.  They can't put a DM in a box, but if they can get new players plugged into those little communities, it's about the same thing.  But of course they're going to prefer to use that position to leverage their own product primarily.

This isn't a black hats/white hats situation.  It's WotC doing something that looks smart for them, but does have (I think) a positive downstream effect on local gaming communities.

By the by, I've heard exactly the opposite about stores providing product.  i.e. that stores are getting one free demo copy for running these.  Does anyone have actual inside info on this?  Perhaps it's tied to that tiered store system wherein higher tiers get more perks?

But either way this plays out, you're still employing informal fallacy.  No one said WotC is being purely altruistic.  But by playground rules, I think they're slightly in the positive.  They're leaving the situation better than they found it.  Might not be _enough_ better for your tastes, but it's still better.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 2, 2010)

Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find.



Imaro said:


> What I don't like is WotC shunting off the cost of demoing it's product to the FLGS and customers... especially now that it's come up they aren't even providing free demo games. So what exactly is WotC providing for this demo that isn't being paid for by the store or customer?



You know, I was wondering the same thing. So, I went to My Events and downloaded the pdf Wizards has for it.



			
				Wizards said:
			
		

> KIT CONTENT DESCRIPTION
> Each kit contains enough materials to run 2 tables. Each table can consist of 1 DM and up to 6 players (4 or 5 per table is OK). Your kit contains the following materials:
> 
> A D&D GAMMA WORLD adventure entitled “Trouble in Freesboro” packaged with a double-sided poster map detailing all the combat encounter locations (2 copies). The focal point of the event, the adventure is designed to be played in about 4 hours, including character creation. Give this adventure to the Dungeon Masters (DMs) that will be running the adventure.
> ...






> I'm sorry I don't understand how this is relevant at all... please expound.



Sure. In the post that I quoted, it seemed to me that you were complaining that someone who paid $6 to play in Gamma World gameday, but didn't like the game well enough to buy it (or actually disliked the game) would be saddled with game pieces they don't want or have any use for. Now, this may not be your main point, but I figured it was one minor point that you wanted to make. So I responded that the game pieces are easy to disposes of, because if you dispose of the game pieces then you no longer have them. Disposing could be as simple as giving them to someone who did like the game. 

At the time, I thought you brought it up because you were upset with Wizards over asking people to buy boosters to participate in a gameday. If I misunderstood you, then I'm sorry. I was an art major (sorta), so I'm occasionally prone to reading into things.



> Yes I am aware of this... again, what does it have to do with the point I am making that I do not want to pay WotC to demo their products?



It's one thing to not want to give someone money. It's another to complain that someone isn't getting any money or benefit from something that they are.

Again, it's possible that I misread your post. But I honestly thought that maybe you had forgotten that the store gets some of the money. I based this on you stating "it boils down to the fact that I don't want to pay a company to demo their products... but I have no problem paying the shop for it's time and manpower in making that possible." In the GW gameday, the store is getting money. 

What seems strange to me (and this is _my_ major point) is that you have no problem giving the store money for running the event, but you do have a problem giving Wizards money for the same thing. Wizards is _manufacturing actual product just for this event_. Promo cards and adventures aren't cheep. Why do not mind paying the store for it's time and effort, but you mind paying Wizards for theirs? Someone had write the adventure, design the promo cards. I guarantee the printer who printed the cards and the adventure didn't do so for free.



> You do realize that paying the store directly would put that $6 towards them right?



Sure. But then, I don't have a problem with Wizards getting some money out of this.



> Or buying a gift card would probably attract a wider market, since people will be able to spend it on what they want, right?



Of course. But the store wouldn't get all of that money, some of it would go to the manufacture of the game/product the customer bought with it. The point of the gameday isn't to attract a wider market to other people's products, it's to attract people to buy the game by having fun playing it. Booster packs and all.


----------



## nedjer (Sep 2, 2010)

More open-ended scenarios, more accessible versions of D&D, lower entry costs, organised GM development . . . and we're concerned about a few cards, (which may help to establish a bridge between Magic and D&D). WotC are making their game, and the hobby, more accessible, which, (along with other stuff), gives them a fighting chance of continuing to offer a premium AD&D 'experience' that can cater for plenty of combat and plenty of other entertainment. 'Essentially' (sorry) they're 'the last, best hope' for future sets of hardback AD&D editions.

CCGs are a highly efficient marketing and revenue raising format, because people like them and find them easy to learn to use. They're very irritating   if pitched at young kids, but most teenagers and on have the option of simply making up their own set of roughly similar cards.


----------



## buddhafrog (Sep 2, 2010)

I listened to the Gen Con introduction of 2011 products including these cards -- and it was said very clearly and specifically that these are not meant to be collected but to be *played*.  It was said maybe four times that they are not collectible.  They are random in order to make the use a lot more fun.

Pulling this one quote is probably misleading, even if it was said.

I don't know if I'll use the cards b/c I think it gets away from the immersion, but I do know that I'll buy a pack and then decide.  Relax everyone.  It's your game still.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 3, 2010)

Wicht said:


> ... While $6 may sound like only a small amount to you, there are those like me who have to watch every penny. Added to this the fact that I have 4 kids that might like to do the demo and you've suddenly turned it into a $30 expense for me. So sure, the $6 demo might cast a net wide enough to draw you in, but it would exclude me. ...




The cynic in me is thinking that if a potential buyer who finds the idea of tossing $6 or $30 for a few cards to be meh, or even an affront, is outside of the target market.  That is, the filter is working as designed.

To respond to a different post, the Robot Viking unboxing shows that the card packs have rarities (common/uncommon/rare):

Robot Viking » Blog Archive » Exclusive Gamma World Unboxing Video

(That is the same as the link in the news section.)

Are the card packs $6?  In my view, the cards are _mostly_ required for the full game experience.  Then, paying $6 for 8 cards seems a bit steep (considering that the Dark Sun hardcovers are $15 at amazon).  Also, you can achieve a close effect by selling complete decks, and having the DM pulling one "exceptional" ability, three "powerful" abilities, and three "average" abilities from a master deck.  I'm disconcerted by the high price, and the inevitable accumulation of commons.

Thx!

TomBitonti


----------



## Wicht (Sep 3, 2010)

tomBitonti said:


> The cynic in me is thinking that if a potential buyer who finds the idea of tossing $6 or $30 for a few cards to be meh, or even an affront, is outside of the target market.  That is, the filter is working as designed.




The cynic in you is a poor salesman. I spend quite a bit of my disposable income each year on gaming and I have done so consistently for close to thirty years.  I have an entire wall in my dining room filled with games and have every intention of buying more as I like them. Moreover, I introduce others to games I like, even to the point of choosing to buy games instead of toys for most of my younger relations.   However, my income is not huge and I have to prioritize my shopping and gaming expenditures. That $30 I spend to let my family try a game we may or may not like could also be spent to buy new flip maps, magic cards, gaming books, or even a whole new board game I've heard good things about. That is, while I am perfectly happy spending $30, if that is all I have to spend on games in a week or two, then forcing me to pay $30 to demo the game with my family is going to sour me on the demo unless I'm at a con and have already budgeted several hundred dollars for doing just that very thing.

*Edit:* Also, let me mention Cons, 'cuz it is a fair comparison. You pay at a Con for each session you play in. There are two main differences however, for me, between being willing to pay for demos at a Con and being willing to pay for a demo at a gaming store. The first I mentioned above, I save up for Cons and think of it as a vacation for the family. So, just like I would be willing to pay to go on a ride at a park, I'm willing to pay to play games at a Con. That is, while from the sellers point of view the activity (demoing a game) is largely the same, from my point of view it is not the same: the Con is me paying to be entertained; the in store demo is me paying to see if I want to pay more later. The fact I may decide to buy the game at the Con after playing it is irrelevant as again its a different mental approach on my part. I expect to buy games when I go to a Con (like souvenirs at a park but more practical than a cheap plastic mug I'll never use). These games may or may not correspond to the games I try out at the demos; more often then not I do not buy a game after trying it as I can only afford so many games. This leads into the second difference. At the Con I get to pick and choose which game I pay to play from hundreds of choices. A fraction of the games I try out I may buy but I might also choose to buy something I did not try. The price of the game, the playing experience: it all goes together to inform my decision. But still, I get to try multiple games and then choose a few. At the gaming store this experience is narrowed to one game. I get to try one game and either choose to buy it or not. But as my budget probably only allows for either the demo or buying a game, if I spend the money and don't like the game, there is no upside and I am completely without further options till my funds are renewed. Entertainment wise its a real shot in the dark and not necessarily an optimum way to shop on a regular basis. (and for those that raise the theater comparison: I also avoid theaters and rent DVDs through Netflix and Streaming Video so that if I don't like a given movie I'm not out a huge chunk of my disposable income.)


----------



## DMZ2112 (Nov 28, 2010)

Whoops, my apologies; should pay more attention to timestamps.


----------



## darktoad (Jan 13, 2011)

I'm probably not the first to think of this, but I wrote a quick article about a couple concrete ways to actually use the new D&D Fortune Cards, that avoids many of the issues people have voiced.

I have more details in the article, but in a nutshell you can have the DM pass out the cards as rewards, or...just give em to your monsters  (who need all the help they can get).

Using D&D Fortune Cards | CrabShark


----------



## Shazman (Jan 13, 2011)

WarlockLord said:


> Wow.  It's like they're _trying_ to prove all the 3.5 fanbois right.  Wasn't one of the constant allegations "they're making D&D more like MtG?"
> 
> Good thing the D&D department of WotC won't be recieving my money anytime soon.




Yeah, because what 4E really needs is to be even more like a CCG.

*Mod Edit:* Folks, this is what we commonly refer to as "threadcrap" - flat snarkiness or negativity that doesn't add anything to a conversation.  It makes the whole place feel rather nasty, and tends to start fights in ways that more thoughtful posting doesn't.  We don't care if you don't like a company, and even say so, but we ask you to be constructive about it.

If you make a habit of threadcrapping, eventually we give you a vacation.  So please don't do it.  Thanks.  ~Umbran


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 13, 2011)

Shazman said:


> Yeah, because what 4E really needs is to be even more like a CCG.




[/sarcasm] - please.

Many people would enjoy just such an additon to their roleplaying. Just because you personally don't like it doesn't make it badwrongfun. And luckily the cards are *optional* (bolded that in case you missed it), so people that don't enjoy them, like you, don't have to buy them to play. Even luckier for you, according to your status, you're not a WotC customer anyway and I don't see it effecting your gaming at all.


----------



## JustKim (Jan 13, 2011)

I'm interested in giving them a try, but I'm also wearing a Snuggie right now. So I understand if my opinion as a consumer has little merit.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 13, 2011)

Wicht said:


> *Edit:* Also, let me mention Cons, 'cuz it is a fair comparison. You pay at a Con for each session you play in. There are two main differences however, for me, between being willing to pay for demos at a Con and being willing to pay for a demo at a gaming store.





In Southern California,  the big cons in Los Angeles, you pay one fee which covers all of your gaming. However, in the past, some small demos have taken place at booths in the dealer room or the flea market and have been free ( I haven't been there the last two years so I don't know if this has changed).  However, here are the registration fees.

1. Shopper's Pass for the dealer's room? free.  They previous owners tried going from free to a  fee in the past and it did not go well leading dealers to complain that they go back to no charge.
2. Day Pass $10 (Fri/Mon) or $25 (Sat/Sun) for the day.  Covers all of your gaming for the day 
3. Weekend $50/$40 preorder/ $35 group preorder (for belonging to certain groups): Covers all of your weekend gaming.
4. Season (next 3 cons) $90


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 13, 2011)

These cards are horrible. As written they do not increase or aid roleplaying in any way. There is no fluff, there are no plot points: only mechanical benefits for combat.

Which means that these cards only introduce the creeping increase of power for the characters to a table. The dungeon master's estimated balance of the encounter is disrupted. The player who buys cards probably has more power and fun than the other players who did not buy cards.

Worse still, you cannot even buy all the cards conveniently, but must rely on random luck and multiple purchases to find the cards you might want for your group.

Furthermore, they cannot be conveniently printed out using the Character Builder. For those of us who have no ready access to a gaming store (such as in rural areas or exotic countries), DDI is much more convenient than relying on a supply of hard copy books or cards.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> [/sarcasm] - please.
> 
> Many people would enjoy just such an additon to their roleplaying. Just because you personally don't like it doesn't make it badwrongfun. And luckily the cards are *optional* (bolded that in case you missed it), so people that don't enjoy them, like you, don't have to buy them to play. Even luckier for you, according to your status, you're not a WotC customer anyway and I don't see it effecting your gaming at all.




They are optional right now, but history and experience clearly show that they will not stay that way. Assuming that the card sales do not tank, the game will be balanced assuming their use within 12 months.  It will have to be, because that is Wizards' sales model. If the latest book (or set of cards) does not provide an advantage, it will not interest their core audience. And in order for the next card set (a wholly mechanical supplement) to provide an advantage over the existing one the contemporary publications will have to be nudged upwards in difficulty.

Whether or not you think this is a good thing is none of my concern, but don't trundle out the old "optional" chestnut to defend it. No rules supplement to a current RPG is ever truly optional. By next year, players will have two options: use the cards, or force their DMs to dumb down official material to keep encounters fair.  At the very least, LFR is destined to become a very different landscape.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 17, 2011)

DMZ2112 said:


> Assuming that the card sales do not tank.




Well, we all have a say in that, with our wallets (I don't begrudge those who want the cards, but I won't be buying them). If they do become popular enough to influence the game, then the audience is getting what they want. I don't exactly buy you "shadow necessity" argument either. Different groups appraoch the game differently and always have since the inception of the game. The DM has always had to adjust for his players style of play from the official material. So, your "problem" with amped up power already exists for, I would hazard to guess, a majority of groups playing any edition of the game.




DMZ2112 said:


> At the very least, LFR is destined to become a very different landscape.




LFR has one main DM: the RPGA. The guy at the table is just a judge. They even call them that. If you want to play in that DM's campaign, then you have to follow his rules. Again, it has always been that way and you can vote against bad DM rules the same way gamers have for decades, with their feet. Or you can create a fan movement imploring the RPGA to change their rules. There are many other options available than playing in a campaign you don't enjoy. I used to play LG and walked away because I didn't like the direction the DM took the overall campaign.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 18, 2011)

I disagree. While every DM modifies official material for their campaigns, there is a difference between picking and choosing rules from a static base and having that static base suddenly convulse under you. These cards are not unlike the shift between 3.0 and 3.5, or between 3.5 and Pathfinder. It's not so much a matter of rule additions as it is the holistic upward change in campaign baseline. Can you play a D&D3.0 character in Pathfinder? Absolutely. But you will be at a consistent disadvantage. These cards make the same promise: upgrade or fall behind.

Again, I agree: all DMs modify official material, and they do it all the time. But I would also argue that all DMs rely on the ability to run official monsters as published, especially in D&D4, and once the campaign baseline is raised that becomes impossible. Every newly published monster will statistically outmatch a character not using Fortune Cards.

Common And fiscal sense both support my position: Wizards would be MAD not to ultimately require the use of these cards. All cynicism aside, this is a tried and true -- and incredibly successful -- business model! All that remains to be seen is whether the D&D4 demographic goes for the bait, and that I'm not sure of. Player pressure killed randomized D&D miniatures, but then again, they came right back as soon as profits dipped even further.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 18, 2011)

DMZ2112 said:


> Every newly published monster will statistically outmatch a character not using Fortune Cards.




I really do not buy this. Designers sitting around and saying, "Well, this creature was ok by MV standards, but now, we gotta change it around a bit to account for the cards. What would it be? A +2 damage, +1 to hit, +1 to a defense? How would they account for he use of fortune cards. And how would it put every previous character behind the 8 ball?

May as well give a creature an aura: 

Aura (infinity): Creatures in the aura may not use fortune cards.

Sorry to say, but there is one creature with that aura on every campaign world I will run in 4E.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 18, 2011)

DMZ2112 said:


> I disagree. While every DM modifies official material for their campaigns, there is a difference between picking and choosing rules from a static base and having that static base suddenly convulse under you. These cards are not unlike the shift between 3.0 and 3.5, or between 3.5 and Pathfinder. It's not so much a matter of rule additions as it is the holistic upward change in campaign baseline. Can you play a D&D3.0 character in Pathfinder? Absolutely. But you will be at a consistent disadvantage. These cards make the same promise: upgrade or fall behind.




So you agree it is the nature of the game. The Companion Set for BECMI changed the game for characters of all levels. Unearthed Arcana for 1E. Skills and Powers for 2E. And the examples you gave for 3rd. Why should anyone expect anything different after all these years? And you do what every DM has done in the past: ignore or adapt.



DMZ2112 said:


> Again, I agree: all DMs modify official material, and they do it all the time. But I would also argue that all DMs rely on the ability to run official monsters as published, especially in D&D4, and once the campaign baseline is raised that becomes impossible. Every newly published monster will statistically outmatch a character not using Fortune Cards.




So ignore the new monsters (don't buy the new material) or adapt the way you use it.



DMZ2112 said:


> Common And fiscal sense both support my position: Wizards would be MAD not to ultimately require the use of these cards. All cynicism aside, this is a tried and true -- and incredibly successful -- business model! All that remains to be seen is whether the D&D4 demographic goes for the bait, and that I'm not sure of. Player pressure killed randomized D&D miniatures, but then again, they came right back as soon as profits dipped even further.




This is a successful business model for CCGs, not RPGs. They would be just as mad to require the use of the cards if it started driving too many customers away. They are testing the market and the players will vote with their wallets whether the cards become "mandatory" or not. I know that I can continue to play my game indefinitely whether these cards exist, become "mandatory," or fade away to obscurity.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 18, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I really do not buy this.




Why? The power curve needs to be maintained in order to have the game be balanced.

I would look at it like this:

Is 4th edition a TPK field, such that PCs need some added advantage?

If the answer is no, then you are putting the game on easy mode.

For those not wanting to play in easy mode, but still want a fair challenge, you need monsters power levels to increase in some faction to counteract these fortune card, but still allow the fortune cards the advantage of surprise ability function each encounter.

Probably why "events directed at experienced player will be required to purchase them", as those events will feature non-standard challenges which may require the extra help, as an experienced player shouldnt need the "surprise ability" to keep their game enjoyable, unless the game has already become stagnant for them and eneds something to bring interest back to it so as to remove them from the rut they are in.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Why? The power curve needs to be maintained in order to have the game be balanced.
> 
> I would look at it like this:
> 
> ...




But you are ignoring the middle here.  There is a mile of space between TPK World and God Mode.  

It's the same sort of mountain people made over the expertise feats - ooo, a plus one or two spread over thirty levels.  GAME BREAKER!!!!

Dropping a plus one on something into the game will not break it.  Really, it won't.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But you are ignoring the middle here.  There is a mile of space between TPK World and God Mode.
> 
> It's the same sort of mountain people made over the expertise feats - ooo, a plus one or two spread over thirty levels.  GAME BREAKER!!!!
> 
> Dropping a plus one on something into the game will not break it.  Really, it won't.




I said easy mode not god mode. I use TPK field like amine filed. You are ok so long as you don't step on a mine and stay on the safe path.

To be opposed to god mode I would say requires the entire path to be a giant pressure mine where stepping anywhere results in death.

So I am not talking about the extremes and had already removed them.

From 1~5 as the boundaries, I would be meaning 2 and 4, whic h isnt as middle of the road as 3, but just offsides of it in one direction and the other.

But if you have seen ANY cards made by WotC you would know that some times they coudl go off the beaten path, and either you will have to up the mosnters, or be silly and ban cards from play...which wouldn't work form a "sealed deck" perspective with a pool of only 8 cards.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I said easy mode not god mode. I use TPK field like amine filed. You are ok so long as you don't step on a mine and stay on the safe path.
> 
> To be opposed to god mode I would say requires the entire path to be a giant pressure mine where stepping anywhere results in death.
> 
> ...




Well, I haven't seen all the cards, but, a quick Google gave me this:







So, basically, I get, a bonus saving throw for someone in the group or a situational bonus to a single attack.

Wow, that's so totally game breaking.  Might as well not even bother rolling attacks.  With power like that, the PC's will just walk all over the monsters.  

---------

Edit to add:

On the whole, "This adds nothing to role play" aspect.  Have people really not being paying attention to how 4e works?  4e gives very, very bare bones narrative guidance because the players are expected to add it in themselves.  I mean, does a player REALLY need to be told how to narrate Self Sacrifice?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wow, that's so totally game breaking.  Might as well not even bother rolling attacks.  With power like that, the PC's will just walk all over the monsters.
> 
> ---------
> 
> I mean, does a player REALLY need to be told how to narrate Self Sacrifice?




We have no idea what other cards in this 80 card set, or other sets might do. Magic the Gathering cards weren't supposed to be so game breaking, but just look at how many over the years became banned, restricted, etc. What is to say these fortune cards will do any different, since WotC card making people still make things that end up used in a way they didnt think of. I know thinking outside the box in 4th edition would be required there. 

The tactics cards ARE very scary. It makes me wonder in such a combat emphasized game, why don't people come up with better tactics of their own over time.

Still in that last card I see the exact "stack" mechanism I was talking about because of these triggered effects. Good thing the handsize is only 1.

So after how many cards will the same effect become redundant and the power creep has to come to the cards?

Also what do these cards do to classes, when another class PC plays a card with a similar or the same effect as one of your classes unique powers? Why pick a class, just draw a card each action you take for exciting new possibilities. Wait, that is the SJG Munchkin Card game though isnt it?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2011)

Well, comparing this to MtG is a bit much.  I mean you're looking at 80 cards vs how many thousand spread over almost twenty years?  I wonder what the percentage of truly game breaking cards to the total number of different cards really is.  I doubt it's even remotely in the double digits.  

So, based on that entirely bogus statistic, if we get as many game breaking cards in this product, we might see one, maybe two problematic cards?

Again, I'll admit, I'm only going by what I see here, but, are either of those cards actually problematic?  Ooo, I take your damage by jumping in front of you or I give someone a free saving throw reroll.  Neither of those is going to have massively large effects.  Never minding the number of times one might draw a card that doesn't apply to the situation.

After all, what's the point in having bonus saving throws if no one is making saving throws?  If none of your allies is bloodied, then Grim Determination is just a nice piece of paper.  And, remember, you don't put cards back in the deck until after the encounter.  So if you chuck this one because it doesn't apply right now, you can't get it back.

I'm really not seeing the mountain you're making out of this molehill Shadzar.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, comparing this to MtG is a bit much.  I mean you're looking at 80 cards vs how many thousand spread over almost twenty years?  I wonder what the percentage of truly game breaking cards to the total number of different cards really is.  I doubt it's even remotely in the double digits.
> 
> So, based on that entirely bogus statistic, if we get as many game breaking cards in this product, we might see one, maybe two problematic cards?
> 
> ...




I am not making a mountain, just saying the possibility exists, which you seem to agree to, so what are we disputing?

Could a card be overpowered? We both seem to think it is possible. I was just initially pointing out my agreement with the poster who stated that, and it COULD easily cause a power curve shift in monsters.

Looking at that new article on DDi, it seems this was the plan all along.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (A New D&D In-Store Play Program)



> *Bring extra character sheets.* Bring Fortune Cards. You’ll need them.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 19, 2011)

Sure, adding these to a game gives a direct power boost. But that isn't anything new, is it? You've got the same sort of option with, say, Themes. 

Or for a more direct parallel, especially in light of the new game program - are these really any different from the old rewards cards? Which gave very similar benefits and gave a solid power bonus to those who collected them? Those rewarded people who played the most or got to the most conventions, instead of those who spent the most in store, but the same core issue was there. These days, the cards are aimed at encouraging game-day participation and the like, rather than aimed at encouraging heavy con attendance and activity. Doesn't see a big deal either way. 

And in the end, yes, they made a difference, but not a huge one, and certainly not enough to cause any real problems between those with or those without. 

Feel free to express worries that we _could _end up with 'broken' cards or options. But until we do, that possibility isn't a valid reason to complain - it's a hypothetical, nothing more, and there are plenty of other ways they could break the game. The cards provide minor benefits. Not of great interest to me, sure, but hardly a gamebreaker.


----------



## pukunui (Jan 20, 2011)

Here's a fairly extensive review of the Fortune Cards from someone who's actually played with them during a D&D Encounters session (reposted from the WotC forums):



> After trying out the new Fortune Cards at D&D: Encounters and mulling it over for a night, here is a review of what I think of them.
> *Overview:*  The description of the Fortune cards is as follows: "Fortune takes many forms. The hand of fate, destiny, divine intervention, or even just plain luck—adventurers attribute their good (or bad) fortune to such agents. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Fortune Cards™ represent these forces acting on your character and his or her allies. Try using these cards in your DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® roleplaying game. May fortune favor you!" (taken from www.wizards.com/dnd/files/FortuneCardRul...)  Each player brings their own deck, and the deck needs to contain any multiple of 10 cards.  There are three types of cards: Attack, Defense, and Tactics.  There needs to be at least three of each type of card in a 10-card deck, 6 of each in a 20-card deck, and so on.
> 
> At the start of an encounter, each player shuffles their deck and draws one card.  You are only allowed one card in your hand.  At the start of the turn, the player can discard their card to draw a new one, draw a new card if there is not one in your hand, or hold on to the current card.  One card can be played per round, and the cards say when they can be played (i.e. while attacking, when hit, etc.).  The card requires no action to be played.
> ...




To account for the fact that these Fortune Cards make PCs more powerful, it sounds like WotC is ramping up the difficulty of their adventures:



> Also, an advertisement from Wizards:
> 
> If you think you have what it takes to brave the fiercest foes, fight the toughest battles, and conquer the vilest enemies, we have a new D&D play experience for you! Starting in September, gather your master tacticians and rules experts together to kick down the dungeon doors and begin the assault!
> 
> ...



My emphasis.

Power creep, escalation, etc?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 20, 2011)

pukunui said:


> Power creep, escalation, etc?




Some of us have already been saying and predicting this, but others, even with your evident review, will likely not agre with the possibility, even when you add the fact that the new program specifically says the power creep is there on both sides.


----------



## pukunui (Jan 20, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Some of us have already been saying and predicting this, but others, even with your evident review, will likely not agre with the possibility, even when you add the fact that the new program specifically says the power creep is there on both sides.



It's not my review. I just reposted it here (doing the "scoop" thing).

My point was that while it's obvious that the Fortune Cards themselves would introduce a bit of power creep on the PC side of things, it looks like WotC is now acknowledging that by escalating the difficulty of their adventures in order to compensate for that.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

pukunui said:


> It's not my review. I just reposted it here (doing the "scoop" thing).
> 
> My point was that while it's obvious that the Fortune Cards themselves would introduce a bit of power creep on the PC side of things, it looks like WotC is now acknowledging that by escalating the difficulty of their adventures in order to compensate for that.




And a good find it was in conjunction with the linked info from WotC.

The most interesting thing to consider then is, WotC knows what next set of cards have already been sent to the printers after this one that will be on the shelves, to know just where that power curve lies. Then already decided to ramp up the "monsters", or had planned to all along to shift the power curve.

Which some are saying just isn't there.

The funniest part I find is that it is NOT one card per encounter, but it seems one per turn? That REALLY blows the roof off the power curve is I am reading that right.

I am still thinking it isn't an afterthought, but this power shift was planned, considering the original promotional information stated along the lines of "for a more challenging experience for experienced players, they will have to buy them". So it wasnt saying "hey we screwed up" this time, but they intended it to be that way all along as it was planned to shift the power.


----------



## pukunui (Jan 21, 2011)

Exactly!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 21, 2011)

The monster ramp-up occurred before the cards and from my experience with 4E was necessary. Monsters, overall, were too weak.

The increased difficulty of the next Encounters season could be higher level opponents, more opponents, or toughers creatures. I don't think you can count any of these as a foregone conclusion.

And the ramped difficulty of the next Encounters season illustrates exactly what I was referring to. The DM (WotC organized play) is adjusting the difficulty for a mandatory element of the Encounters program.

Definitive evidence would have to come from more than a single campaign to convince me that more-than-normal power escalation is occuring because of the "mandatory" nature of the cards outside of Encounters.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 21, 2011)

shadzar said:


> And a good find it was in conjunction with the linked info from WotC.
> 
> The most interesting thing to consider then is, WotC knows what next set of cards have already been sent to the printers after this one that will be on the shelves, to know just where that power curve lies. Then already decided to ramp up the "monsters", or had planned to all along to shift the power curve.
> 
> ...




The problem with your conjecture is that, from what I've read, the cards really aren't that powerful.  I mean, the Rare is pretty dang good, I'll grant you!  But for the most part?  This doesn't blow the power curve off anything.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 21, 2011)

Swashbuckling Cards have been available on EN World, for free, for a long time.


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 21, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with your conjecture is that, from what I've read, the cards really aren't that powerful. I mean, the Rare is pretty dang good, I'll grant you! But for the most part? This doesn't blow the power curve off anything.




Except for potentially using them every turn. You are suddenly getting, potentially, a half-dozen new utility powers every encounter. 

I don't think it is game-breaking, but especially for those who will be able to build decks with cards that are consistently useful, built out of rarer and more powerful cards... yeah, it definitely affects the power curve. 

I compared them to D&D reward cards earlier, but the 'once per turn' aspect is the part that really defeats that comparison. The rewards cards tended to provide potent benefits... and you could use maybe 3-4 of them _per session_. Having access to those extra powers every single round is a big difference. Even if you don't have complete control over what card you have in a given round, its still a significant boost. 

I don't think there is any grand 'power-shift' conspiracy. D&D has always had room for more optimized groups or less optimized groups, and 'tournament style' adventures isn't anything new. But I've already got a really effective group of players, and I would _never _let these cards into play in a game as is. 

Using them in limited amounts, I can see them as handy. But having them as permanent power boosts is less useful to the game, for me, even if I understand that it does encourage people to buy more of them. And I can't really fault WotC for that, even if I don't want to use the cards in that fashion myself.


----------



## darktoad (Jan 21, 2011)

Anyone here follow D&D on Facebook?

A short while back they were talking about a delve where a 2nd level party had to deal with two 4th level Solo Young Black Dragons. I think they were looking for counter-tactics or something.

I thought it sounded absurd at the time and made a comment to that notion. You just don't throw players into the grinder like that... but now I'm thinking that this was simply a playtest of the fortune cards.

So, I'm not ready to agree with folks here that the power creep will be inherent to the game or even their adventures. They clearly have specific events planned for hardcore players who are experts at the rules. The success of these events and the sales of the cards will largely determine whether it will become a fixture of the core system.

I'm personally planning to get some cards to award to my players as treasure, and to give to my monsters so they have more of a fighting chance.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 21, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with your conjecture is that, from what I've read, the cards really aren't that powerful. I mean, the Rare is pretty dang good, I'll grant you! But for the most part? This doesn't blow the power curve off anything.




Of COURSE the RARE is pretty dang good, thats why they made it rare ...welcome to the wild world of CCGs.  (Well, there are some games in which rares/foils are just alternate versions of already existing cards, but I played Yugioh for 8 years and MTG for 2.)



darktoad said:


> Anyone here follow D&D on Facebook?
> 
> A short while back they were talking about a delve where a 2nd level party had to deal with two 4th level Solo Young Black Dragons. I think they were looking for counter-tactics or something.
> 
> I thought it sounded absurd at the time and made a comment to that notion. You just don't throw players into the grinder like that.




Sometimes players need to be punished. 
Sometimes the DM just wants to say **** you.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 22, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The monster ramp-up occurred before the cards and from my experience with 4E was necessary. Monsters, overall, were too weak.
> 
> The increased difficulty of the next Encounters season could be higher level opponents, more opponents, or toughers creatures. I don't think you can count any of these as a foregone conclusion.
> 
> ...




But this is a failure on *the DM*'s part then. When the DM raises the level of the mosnters in such a way that they then have to grant more to the PCs, then they grant more power to the monster,s then more to the PCs, then more to the monsters, wash-rinse-repeat.

This is what is occurring.

When the DM raised the level of the monsters to high, rather than the constant shifting power struggle, the fix is to dial them back down a bit; not to raise everything back and forth.

*Bad DM:* I made the monsters a bit too powerful, so I will give you more to make it better in the future.

*Good DM:* I made the monsters a bit too powerful, so I will fix my mistake by not making them as powerful in the future.



ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with your conjecture is that, from what I've read, the cards really aren't that powerful.  I mean, the Rare is pretty dang good, I'll grant you!  But for the most part?  This doesn't blow the power curve off anything.




Maybe not a problem if "sealed deck" is the format, but you get a 10 card deck, that means 2 packs must be bought and 6 card sideboard. So maybe not so bad, and keeps the constant throwing money away gimmick in place, so WotC can nickle-and-dime players to death.

When you take into account that "rare" in a pack can be all 10 cards, so long as 3 of each "type" of card is in your deck, yeah it generates a big power curve when you get a new one to use EACH TURN.

You could force people to use cards with drawbacks like saying X number of commons must be in the deck, but then your product flops, because people don't want to be told what to build in decks, they are les angered by being told, what you can't use.

IF you make commons without drawbacks such that they are as good as the rares, then people won't use the rares so much, but why would they because commons are just as good, and people again stop buying cards. Secondary market for collectible cards, yes there will be one, will snatch up packs and not be able to make money form everyone wanting the commons and stuck with many of the rares. They wont be able to have high prices for the rares as people CAN turn to commons.

So just with CCGs, it will become a competition where he with the most money wins. Some people will do better because of having better cards, and so many people play the game competitively today is why many of the recent changes "evolved" like standard level limits for all, powers for all, etc....

If the DM builds the deck and the group uses that deck rather than their own, the again, product fails, because so few people would be buying them, unless the DM charges you to play in their game a pack of fortune cards.

Lets look at another CCG element at work since people are just not seeing the constant power shift.

Someone goes to a CCG (constructed) tournament and forgets their deck. They don't play in that tournament, or have to buy cards there to play with.

Someone goes to a D&D event in a store to play D&D and doesn't have a deck...they have to buy a CCG to play D&D now? You turn away a play from your store because they don't have a deck? Do you supply them with a "store deck" for use? If the store has to keep decks on hand, then why would players buy them for store events?

Some stores may be in areas of high enough concentration to make paying for events not too bad jsut for the space taken up. I still see it as funny, but so be it for them. Not everyone is in areas of high enough concentration to have people playing and paying to play D&D in a store.

The idea from giving people space to play when CCGs took over was to get people in to enjoy the games enough to want to spend money on them, and since they are at a store anyway why not buy form the one they are at?

The areas of low concentration of RPG players that start charging to play are the ones that quickly stop selling D&D brand products as customers will go to another source for their products (Amazon, etc).

CCGs work well for two parties, the company that makes them if they sell, and the secondary market.

While the CMG worked with D&D, for a while, because people like minis to use with D&D, mixing two types of games isnt always smart.

Since the CMG failed, they are just trying to add the CCG to it. The same thing will happen with the CCG element, but sooner, because stores are getting fed up and so are players. All the extra shelf space required to carry the CCG/CMG type products, space to carry the singles.

While trying to "help" stores by giving them something else to sell, if you want to say that is the reason for the CCG in D&D, they are actually killing stores by taking away shelf space they could be using for other things.

Overhead for this new element is NOT going to be cheap for a store, and the cost of ANY new CCG added is a big one.

You have to front a display box, meaning another product cannot hold that place, so that people can see you have it on hand to buy/impulse buy. You have to make storage space for stock of this new product. You have to start figuring up singles prices and how to store and display them, will it be a notebook with card sheets in it? No more SCRYE, so the store has to do research of online prices to be able to compete with singles prices.

Another funny thing about them, while WotC doesn't want more than one D&D on the market so refuses to support older editions, WotC is competing directly with Magic The Gathering.

WotC can make these choices lightly, but the stores and players have a lot to deal with because of it.

I could come up with tons of cons, but the only pros seem to be for WotC with these Fortune Cards.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 22, 2011)

> and it was said very clearly and specifically that these are not meant to be collected but to be *played*. It was said maybe four times that they are not collectible. They are random in order to make the use a lot more fun.




They can say that as often as they like, but the randomized rarity element makes it collectible almost by definition.

Don't want people comparing these to CCGs?

Why the nine hells did you decide to sell them in randomized booster packs?

Speaking for me, the randomized collectible element doesn't make them a lot more fun. Quite the opposite. I don't pay for things I _might_ like. I pay for things I'm pretty sure I will like. Booster packs aren't fun. Drawing a random card from a deck is fun! They don't need to be sold like that to be fun. Swashbuckling Cards and Drama Decks and Plot Twist Decks are all plenty of fun without the...ahem..._collectible_ randomized booster pack element.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 22, 2011)

I don't envisage my players picking up fortune cards. The power creep issue isn't a problem for me _provided that it players out at the level of encounter design_ (like the 2 solo dragons encounter described above). If it starts to affect the design of individual monsters, that will be a different matter.

(Btw, I am one of those who is finding that the monster boost in MM3/MV is a good thing, independently of fortune cards.)


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 25, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with your conjecture is that, from what I've read, the cards really aren't that powerful.  I mean, the Rare is pretty dang good, I'll grant you!  But for the most part?  This doesn't blow the power curve off anything.




And the power gap makes the cards okay?

Now you've got a majority of players at the table with a 30-40 Fortune Card deck made up primarily of commons, a few uncommons, and maybe a rare or two; and one or two players who hit eBay with a vengeance and have a deck of 20 rares.  So not only is there power creep, but only a minority of players gets to enjoy it.

Awesome, because what I look for in my campaigns as a player and a Dungeon Master is character disparity.  That makes everyone happy.

This is such a good idea.  I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would not support it.

::head explodes::


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 25, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> They can say that as often as they like, but the randomized rarity element makes it collectible almost by definition.




Subjective rarity, by which I mean the relative rarity of one card to another within a set, is not what makes a card game collectible.  What makes a card game collectible is OBJECTIVE rarity, which is to say the number of total cards printed.

The reason why collectible card games are now almost universally called TRADING card games is because as soon as there was a lucrative global market for these games, no company wanted to limit their print runs, which made the term "collectible" false advertising.  No one wanted to get sued ten years down the line when their cards weren't worth the cardboard they were printed on.

Modern TCGs aren't collectible because, rare or not, there are millions of each card out there.  The value of Magic cards is still driven by a surfeit of demand, not a lack of supply.

That said, Fortune Cards may very well become collectible -- if this is the only set ever printed.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

DMZ2112 said:


> And the power gap makes the cards okay?
> 
> Now you've got a majority of players at the table with a 30-40 Fortune Card deck made up primarily of commons, a few uncommons, and maybe a rare or two; and one or two players who hit eBay with a vengeance and have a deck of 20 rares.  So not only is there power creep, but only a minority of players gets to enjoy it.
> 
> ...




While in a public game like the Encounters this might happen, what kind of DM just wouldn't turn to Bob and say no?  I realize that DM's are supposed to say yes, but, come on.  How many DM's will just meekly submit to this level of abuse of the rules?

The easy solution to this is, don't play with jerks.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> While in a public game like the Encounters this might happen, what kind of DM just wouldn't turn to Bob and say no?  I realize that DM's are supposed to say yes, but, come on.  How many DM's will just meekly submit to this level of abuse of the rules?
> 
> The easy solution to this is, don't play with jerks.




The place where these will be seen first by many will be those public games. This is where the DM cannot say "no". This will likely carry back as accepted behavior for the non-public games.

Either way it is a thing that is a reason many play RPGs as opposed to CCGs. RPGs level the playing field for all. There wasn't a component of "he with the most money does better", unless you were bribing the DM.

Collectible games revolve around the people with the most money do better. The reason being they can afford the collectible parts to get the "best" options, while everyone else has to squeak by with what they can afford.

RPGs were never like that as everyone should have access to the same things, thus the reason DMs set forth some things not allowed to be used by any, and if one player can use it, then ALL players can.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> While in a public game like the Encounters this might happen, what kind of DM just wouldn't turn to Bob and say no?  I realize that DM's are supposed to say yes, but, come on.  How many DM's will just meekly submit to this level of abuse of the rules?
> 
> The easy solution to this is, don't play with jerks.




It's not abuse of the rules!  It's the rules as written!  This is how people play Magic -- why shouldn't they play D&D the same way?

I agree with the sentiment of your easy solution, but where do you draw the line?  eBay?  Buying a box of Fortune Cards?  Getting a few lucky boosters?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

DMZ2112 said:


> It's not abuse of the rules!  It's the rules as written!  This is how people play Magic -- why shouldn't they play D&D the same way?




Because every edition of D&D tells you to NOT try to play the "rules as written" as they are not meant to be played in their exact forms. If the rule could be played as written, the DM would only be a random encounter generator, yet every edition sets him up as a rules arbiter, because the rules are NOT complete nor functional for all.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

DMZ2112 said:


> It's not abuse of the rules!  It's the rules as written!  This is how people play Magic -- why shouldn't they play D&D the same way?
> 
> I agree with the sentiment of your easy solution, but where do you draw the line?  eBay?  Buying a box of Fortune Cards?  Getting a few lucky boosters?




Because DM's have their brains removed with a spoon when they sit down at a table where these cards are being used?  I mean, come on, it's going to be pretty obvious if someone busts out a pack of rares at your table.  Again, don't play with jerks and that problem solves itself.

I'm not sure about the organized play.  Wasn't there something about the idea that you should bring the boosters to the table?  Sort of like how you do sealed booster games in MtG?  I haven't been following things that closely, but I do recall something about this from a while back. 

That would be the easy way to solve the Ebay issue in organized play though.  You must play with a sealed booster.  End of issue.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Because DM's have their brains removed with a spoon when they sit down at a table where these cards are being used?  I mean, come on, it's going to be pretty obvious if someone busts out a pack of rares at your table.  Again, don't play with jerks and that problem solves itself.




You're dodging my question.  How do you define a jerk?  Someone who spends $50 on cards on eBay?  Someone who spends $50 on boosters at their FLGS?  Someone who spends $100 in either place?  Someone who purchases discount boxes from a wholesaler?  At what point does a player's card collection become illegitimate because they are a 'jerk?'

I'm guessing you do not play Magic.  No one calls a Magic player a jerk just because he's invested money in specific cards to make a deck work.  If you don't think that we will be seeing characters optimized with a coordinated Fortune Card deck within a year -- heck, within _months_ -- you are sorely mistaken.



> I'm not sure about the organized play.  Wasn't there something about the idea that you should bring the boosters to the table?  Sort of like how you do sealed booster games in MtG?  I haven't been following things that closely, but I do recall something about this from a while back.
> 
> That would be the easy way to solve the Ebay issue in organized play though.  You must play with a sealed booster.  End of issue.




So you have to buy new boosters every time you play?  Wizards must_ love_ you.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 25, 2011)

DMZ2112 said:


> You're dodging my question.  How do you define a jerk?  Someone who spends $50 on cards on eBay?  Someone who spends $50 on boosters at their FLGS?  Someone who spends $100 in either place?  Someone who purchases discount boxes from a wholesaler?  At what point does a player's card collection become illegitimate because they are a 'jerk?'
> 
> I'm guessing you do not play Magic.  No one calls a Magic player a jerk just because he's invested money in specific cards to make a deck work.  If you don't think that we will be seeing characters optimized with a coordinated Fortune Card deck within a year -- heck, within _months_ -- you are sorely mistaken.
> 
> ...




This is particularly true when there is a great discretionary income disparity at the gaming table.

At my gaming table, the top household income is over 300K and the bottom is up to 40K after a period of unemployment.  Is the top guy a jerk if he buys a case of cards?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 25, 2011)

> How do you define a jerk?




Someone it is not _fun_ to _be around_.

I am a little surprised that anyone has to define this. 



> At my gaming table, the top household income is over 300K and the bottom is up to 40K after a period of unemployment. Is the top guy a jerk if he buys a case of cards?




It depends, are they _fun to be around_?

Buying a case of cards if someone else at your table can certainly count as "being a jerk," since you've just given your unemployed friend a painful reminder of a big problem in their lives every time you slap down a card.

It could also not count as being a jerk, if no one cares, or you buy enough for everyone, or whatever. 

Whether or not you're a jerk depends on other people's perception of you and I just realized I'm explaining basic social norms on an internet message board so I am going to stop before I go all wahooni-shaped.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 25, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Someone it is not _fun_ to _be around_.
> 
> I am a little surprised that anyone has to define this.
> 
> ...




For this conversation, "jerk" has been previously defined as "someone who promotes power disparity at the table".  Promotion of power disparity is at best tangential to "not fun to be around".



			
				DMZ2112  said:
			
		

> Quote:
> And the power gap makes the cards okay?
> 
> Now you've got a majority of players at the table with a 30-40 Fortune Card deck made up primarily of commons, a few uncommons, and maybe a rare or two; and one or two players who hit eBay with a vengeance and have a deck of 20 rares. So not only is there power creep, but only a minority of players gets to enjoy it.
> ...




So _with that definition in play and not your own_ my question remains.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

DMZ2112 said:


> You're dodging my question.  How do you define a jerk?  Someone who spends $50 on cards on eBay?  Someone who spends $50 on boosters at their FLGS?  Someone who spends $100 in either place?  Someone who purchases discount boxes from a wholesaler?  At what point does a player's card collection become illegitimate because they are a 'jerk?'
> 
> I'm guessing you do not play Magic.  No one calls a Magic player a jerk just because he's invested money in specific cards to make a deck work.  If you don't think that we will be seeing characters optimized with a coordinated Fortune Card deck within a year -- heck, within _months_ -- you are sorely mistaken.
> 
> ...




Apples and oranges though.  I don't play with people who want to "win" at RPG's.  That would likely nudge them into the jerk category even without the cards.  Someone who deliberately goes out to build the ultimate deck for an RPG has kinda missed the point of these cards as far as I'm concerned.

As far as buying boosters, my memory was only nudging me in the right direction:



			
				Wizards Play Network said:
			
		

> 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. Once you start using them, you’ll see that they actually help to focus player actions and provide interesting tactical opportunities that you may not have considered previously.




Note, this is primarily aimed, at least from the writeup here at game day events and in store stuff.  I would also point out that these things are only being sold in gaming stores.  A bit of a tool around the WPN site shows that there is a new program coming out in September that seems specifically geared for the cards.

Meh, as I said, if you play with players who would take the time and money to beat D&D, you have larger issues than these cards.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 25, 2011)

I could see something like Mind Over Metal being spammed to ill effect.

I'm not against the concept of cards in general.  I'm just not thrilled with how the idea is being used in D&D.  From a business perspective, I can somewhat understand it; from a player's perspective, I am leaning slightly toward a negative feeling.

I can't help but to be curious about whether or not there are plans for cards of a similar natured designed to be used by the DM.  ...I just had a bad mental flash of the 'Rocks Fall; Everyone Dies' card from Munchkin being played during a session of D&D.


It's tough; as I said, I wouldn't mind some sort of card adding to the action of the game.  It might be fun to have sort of drama deck which adds unexpected elements to an encounter.  However, that's not what is being done (at least I don't think so) with the Fortune Cards.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 25, 2011)

shadzar said:


> But this is a failure on *the DM*'s part then. When the DM raises the level of the mosnters in such a way that they then have to grant more to the PCs, then they grant more power to the monster,s then more to the PCs, then more to the monsters, wash-rinse-repeat.
> 
> This is what is occurring.




This is not what's occurring with the Encounters Program. The DM (WotC) has decided they want a high-powered, high-difficulty campaign with more tactical options available to players. The ramp up of difficulty was intentional, not a mistake. The ramp up of player power was intentional, not a mistake. I can understand how one's personal tastes can lead them to dislike the ramped up difficulty and power levels, but that does not make the actions of the DM a mistake. They are telling you the parameters of their campaign. The only mistake would be you joining the campaign if it does not suit your tastes.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 25, 2011)

DMZ2112 said:


> I'm guessing you do not play Magic.  No one calls a Magic player a jerk just because he's invested money in specific cards to make a deck work.




Sorry, you are wrong here. Many casual "kitchen table" groups do consider this type of player to be a jerk and will stop playing with someone who constantly pulls out the "best deck." Mainly tournament players strive for the "best deck."

Edit: In fact, there are specific formats like Pauper (common cards only) and many multi-player formats that certainly have nothing resembling a best deck.

It happened to me personally when my friends and I were playing Illuminati: New World Order. I was able to buy many more packs thatn they were and built a pretty consistent deck. They got sick of not having a fair chance of winning and decided not to play anymore. My cards became unused and worthless as I had no one willing to play.

Since the majority of D&D games played at home are of the "kitchen table" variety, I would expect much the same results from the 20 rare deck guy. I'd also expect a wide variation of uses for the cards other than the "official" use.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 25, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This is not what's occurring with the Encounters Program. The DM (WotC) has decided they want a high-powered, high-difficulty campaign with more tactical options available to players.




 What does this have to do with the power increase cycle.

1. switching off power level is where all the power creep and content bloat comes form for trying to match the new power levels.

2. what tactical option didn't players have before

3. this isnt any kind of tactical option, just another list of bonus to pick from and pile onto the character. It has nothing to do with tactics. Tactics is drawing the enemy into a small space to bottleneck them, surrounding them, pinning them into a corner, etc.

Fortune cards offer nothing in the way of tactics, only a new list of bonuses. Tactics come from player decision and not some CCG added to an RPG.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 25, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Sorry, you are wrong here. Many casual "kitchen table" groups do consider this type of player to be a jerk and will stop playing with someone who constantly pulls out the "best deck." Mainly tournament players strive for the "best deck."
> 
> Edit: In fact, there are specific formats like Pauper (common cards only) and many multi-player formats that certainly have nothing resembling a best deck.
> 
> ...




The difference here is D&D isn't primarily a player competitive game.  If player A brings in a ripped deck of cards, he may shine, but the group benefits.  The kitchen table' danger is the DM reacts by increasing the encounter difficulty to account for the extra benefit and thus makes those without the benefit less useful/more at risk.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> /snip
> Fortune cards offer nothing in the way of tactics, only a new list of bonuses. Tactics come from player decision and not some CCG added to an RPG.




Now this I would largely agree with, although it's a bit of a separate issue.  The cards _could_ add additional tactical elements to an encounter.  Paizo's Fate Deck is a good example of this.  These, from what I've seen so far, are just floating bonuses.  There is some strategy involved - do I play the card now?  Do I hold it?  Do I discard for something else? - but very little in the way of tactics, particularly since the cards have no narrative element.

Sure, some of them could pretty easily be narrated tactically - the one that lets you jump in front of someone to take their hit for example is pretty straightforward - but, at the end of the day, I don't think these add a whole lot of tactical complexity to an encounter.

That doesn't make them bad, just not particularly tactically relavent.




Nagol said:


> The difference here is D&D isn't primarily a player competitive game.  If player A brings in a ripped deck of cards, he may shine, but the group benefits.  The kitchen table' danger is the DM reacts by increasing the encounter difficulty to account for the extra benefit and thus makes those without the benefit less useful/more at risk.




But that's the point.  Someone who brings the ripped deck to the table is likely going to have four other players looking at him like he's got two heads.  He's spending a bunch of money to "win" D&D.  It's no different I suppose than the guy who goes out to buy fifteen different splat books to create mechanical monstrosities to "win" D&D.

If the group is groovy with it, fine, no problem.  But, I think at least some groups will find this sort of player somewhat distasteful and you'll see the DM quickly ejecting Fortune Cards.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But that's the point.  Someone who brings the ripped deck to the table is likely going to have four other players looking at him like he's got two heads.  He's spending a bunch of money to "win" D&D.  It's no different I suppose than the guy who goes out to buy fifteen different splat books to create mechanical monstrosities to "win" D&D.
> 
> If the group is groovy with it, fine, no problem.  But, I think at least some groups will find this sort of player somewhat distasteful and you'll see the DM quickly ejecting Fortune Cards.




Don't disagree with a thing in the entire post, but ant to add to this part.....

It adds the competitive element to the game if one person is trying to soup-up their character without the others being able to with the cards.

They COULD build the deck around helping the group, but all too easily the deck will function to make one in the party look like superhero, while the others are sidekicks.

The only time anyone wins is if everyone wins. Everyone in the game had to have fun. As a DM, if a single player doesn't have fun due to any action of ANY player, then the entire group loses, and those loses will show in XP penalties either from the group awards for working together as a group, or the "fun" XP awards, which could be taken away entirely depending on the level of "not fun" shown by one of the players.

So if these were forced into, as I just wouldn't allow them to begin with, in a game of mine, they are likely to cause people to not have fun and completely rreduce the amounts of XP over time if a player was using them in a fashion that amde the game not fun for others, and that is a VERY real possibility with them.

I wonder what website will host "net decks" of Fortune Cards?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 26, 2011)

shadzar said:


> What does this have to do with the power increase cycle.




My point is that this is for Encounters only. The Encounters program doesn't need the power level of monsters to increase in the supplements to succeed at its goal. It can uses the same creatures the rest of us do, but increase the level of the encounters thrown at the party. It does not necessarily follow that all content will creep up further in power because of the cards.



shadzar said:


> 3. this isnt any kind of tactical option, just another list of bonus to pick from and pile onto the character. It has nothing to do with tactics. Tactics is drawing the enemy into a small space to bottleneck them, surrounding them, pinning them into a corner, etc.
> 
> Fortune cards offer nothing in the way of tactics, only a new list of bonuses. Tactics come from player decision and not some CCG added to an RPG.




And the cards can facilitate these tactics. I never said they _were_ tactics. I carefully said they provide additional tactical options. They provide additional actions beyond the economy of actions built into the game.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 26, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The difference here is D&D isn't primarily a player competitive game.  If player A brings in a ripped deck of cards, he may shine, but the group benefits.  The kitchen table' danger is the DM reacts by increasing the encounter difficulty to account for the extra benefit and thus makes those without the benefit less useful/more at risk.




I wasn't the one calling the guy with the 20 rare deck a jerk. I was merely countering an argument made that Magic players would never be called a jerk for making the best deck.

Edit: And D&D might not be mainly competitive among players, but I can assure you that the non-optimizers in my 3E campaigns did not enjoy the fact that the optimizers could neutralize any threat to the party without their help.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 26, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My point is that this is for Encounters only. The Encounters program doesn't need the power level of monsters to increase in the supplements to succeed at its goal. It can uses the same creatures the rest of us do, but increase the level of the encounters thrown at the party. It does not necessarily follow that all content will creep up further in power because of the cards.




Event material has quite often become things used for standard game play. While it may initially intend to only appear there, the power curve can shift within the rest of the game easily.

Assume your Encounter writer also writes other parts of the game, and get, as often it happens, into the practice of upping the ante on the monster power, then it may slip in thought when doing it outside of the Encounter platform. This might not be noticed by other people during the process as it might be small at first, like most power creep is, then get bigger and go unnoticed until it is compared with the initial designed mosnters to see that there is a disparity between them that occured slowly without notice.



> And the cards can facilitate these tactics. I never said they _were_ tactics. I carefully said they provide additional tactical options. They provide additional actions beyond the economy of actions built into the game.




Reroll a save, isn't really anything tactical. SOME may offer some tactic, but shouldn't that very thing already be in the rules, such as jump in front of a friend to take the hit for them?

Why is this unable to be done without a card? imply because nothing in the rules suggest how to handle it? (Page 42) Or because a player wouldn't think it possible, since there is nothing in previous lists of "options" that tells them they can, or even inspires them to try?

They are very very weak, and the game provides the tactical options, you just have to enlist them before they can be used. Enlist, not compile _into_ a list.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 27, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Event material has quite often become things used for standard game play. While it may initially intend to only appear there, the power curve can shift within the rest of the game easily. Assume your Encounter writer also writes other parts of the game, and get, as often it happens, into the practice of upping the ante on the monster power, then it may slip in thought when doing it outside of the Encounter platform.




Encounter difficulty can increase without monster power increasing. Examples like the two solo dragon encounter illustrate this. Incorporating this into published modules will be readily apparent when the level of the encounter is more than four levels above the party. I think the bas assumption is faulty.



shadzar said:


> They are very very weak, and the game provides the tactical options, you just have to enlist them before they can be used. Enlist, not compile _into_ a list.




I won't argue with you here. I'd rather see a stronger concept behind these cards. A random pack of cards similar to the TORG drama deck woud be more to my liking. Although I could see a variant use of these cards that would make them kind of like that deck (the drama deck had both mechanical bonuses and plot manipulation if I remember correctly).

Idea: The DM buys the cards and forms a single deck of however many cards he wishes. On a specific trigger(s) (spending an action point, rolling a critical success, rolling a critical failure), a card could be turned up for use by the triggering side of the encounter (or maybe the opposition if the trigger is a critical failure.

I still don't see evidence that these cards will ramp up the power curve all on their own and become a necessity. I will concede that it is _possible_, but I don't feel it is likely.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 27, 2011)

From the few cards I've seen in previews, I think I can see the cards throwing off the power curve when involved in a game.  While I'd like to believe most groups would view it as bad form, some of the common cards could be spammed over and over again (by making a deck with only those cards) to great effect.

Though, truth be told, it wouldn't be a new thing for me to see 4E PCs laugh in the face of the monsters, so I'm not sure if I'd really notice the effect of the cards too much.

Right now, I guess I'm mostly confused about what the point in making the MM3 and beyond monsters tougher was if some of the Essentials options and things such as the cards were going to to ramp the PCs up to a place which was analogous to their previous position ahead of the foes.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Meh, as I said, if you play with players who would take the time and  money to beat D&D, you have larger issues than these cards.




I can't argue with this.  If you outlaw character optimization at your table as a matter of course, these cards are not a concern for you.


----------



## pukunui (Jan 28, 2011)

Just reading the blog on the [url="http://critical-hits.com/2011/01/27/ddxp-2011-new-product-seminar/]DDXP new products seminar[/url] over at Critical Hits. Looks like cards are the future of D&D.

Along with the Fortune Cards, there will also be two more decks of cards:

Despair Cards: _"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."_

And the Deck of Many Things (included in the Gardmore Abbey box set): 
_"Madness at Gardmore Abbey Boxed Set – September
Backstory: recovering an evil artifact that turns out to be the Deck of Many Things, which lures monsters in and warps the surroundings and dungeons in a way that also makes them replayable as well as interesting, includes complete card set for the Deck. (yessssss) ... Showing Deck of Many Things. It looks awesome and I want it. Trevor Kidd asks who here has been in a campaign with the Deck in play, and also who saw someone die or get imprisoned or something else nuts. Everyone who raised their hand said yes. Now everyone is reminiscing a bit about the horrible cards. I love this place."_


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 28, 2011)

Decks of cards have always been awesome player aids.  I have fond memories of the Tarokka deck from the old Ravenloft boxed set.

There's already a Deck of Many Things on the market, of course.

I don't know how I feel about a deck of cards that dictates roleplay.  But I suppose that fundamentally it is no different than fear and horror checks followed by a roll on an arbitrary table of afflictions.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 28, 2011)

pukunui said:


> Just reading the blog on the DDXP new products seminar over at Critical Hits. Looks like cards are the future of D&D.
> 
> Along with the Fortune Cards, there will also be two more decks of cards:
> 
> Despair Cards: _"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."_




There's a type of card for telling my character how to feel about a situation?


----------



## francisca (Jan 28, 2011)

Greg K said:


> Per Mike Mearls from an interview
> 
> Fortune Cards
> 
> MM: "Similar to Gamma World cards, we are going to be doing fortune cards for D&D. They are collectible cards that give the same kind of random dramatic element to the game. The player can alter the action a little bit by using a random benefit. As a whole they make the game a little more unpredictable and makes things work out in an interesting new way."




I dunno know about the rest of you guys, but the jokers I play with are already random, dramatic elements.  I dunno how much more we could withstand.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 28, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> There's a type of card for telling my character how to feel about a situation?




Games like Call of Cthulhu have insanity checks. D&D has always had fear effects. These cards seem to be an attempt to emulate the overwhelming forces the Shadowfell places on a character's mind. Don't know if they'll accomplish that, but it seems better than the original "Tales from the Darkside"1 flavor of the Shadowfell.

1 For those too young, I'm referring to the opening credits of the show where the real world flips to a photo negative view. IOW, merely a dark mirror of the material world.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 28, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> There's a type of card for telling my character how to feel about a situation?




I'm pretty sure the Despair cards are a Ravenloft/Shadowfell product, so it's probably the equivalent of "make a save or flee in terror" - just in card form as compared to a random table or the like. 

Honestly, I'm much less concerned about these upcoming products, nor do I see any indication that "cards are the future of D&D". Deck of Many Things has existed for ages, despair cards fit the theme for the Shadowfell environment. Both are complete decks included as part of a larger product. Neither involve randomization or collectability.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 28, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Despair cards fit the theme for the Shadowfell environment.




And I'm kind of intrigued by the anti-CoC-insanity aspect of becoming more resistant to the Gloom of the Shadowfell. Don't know if I'd buy these, but I'm more interested to see these cards than the other offerings.


----------



## Ashy (Jan 28, 2011)

A totally different approach would be the one we've taken: instead of inserting randomized cards as a supplement to your favorite game, strip away the randomization and the blind packaging and distill everything in your game into a card. This reduces the overall footprint of what you bring to a game, changes the paradigm of what you HAVE to buy to that which you WANT to buy, and still gives you all the flexibility and fun of a traditional RPG.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 28, 2011)

Ashy said:


> A totally different approach would be the one we've taken: instead of inserting randomized cards as a supplement to your favorite game, strip away the randomization and the blind packaging and distill everything in your game into a card. This reduces the overall footprint of what you bring to a game, changes the paradigm of what you HAVE to buy to that which you WANT to buy, and still gives you all the flexibility and fun of a traditional RPG.




[MENTION=312]Ashy[/MENTION]: Looks interesting. Send me a demo set and I'll run your game at the Chicago Gameday on February 26th instead of the 4E game I'm planning to run.


----------



## Ashy (Jan 28, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> [MENTION=312]Ashy[/MENTION]: Looks interesting. Send me a demo set and I'll run your game at the Chicago Gameday on February 26th instead of the 4E game I'm planning to run.




Cool! Will do - drop me an email if you don't mind: ashy [at symbol] untoldthegame [dot symbol] com and we'll go from there!


----------

