Begin.
Gamma World was bad enough with a just a thin justification for having cards to play with. I just don't like this idea much. And, in fact, neither does my FLGS.
Wizards called the store manager of my FLGS and asked how many boxes did he want to order. He replied, "None. My customers feel strongly that this is something they do not want for their games. This will actually hurt my sales if you do this."
I applauded. The idea of extra bonuses - good. This CCG collectible format - very bad. We do not need a CCG for our RPG. It really is that simple.
Arovyn
Sold in packs with a level range clearly labeled (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc) the pack would contain 12 magic items of a random nature, and would include a high-quality illustration as well as the full magical and non-magical effects of the item in question.
The C/U/R ratio would be handled by the cards themselves, and having a "deck" of these things would be good way for a DM to randomize and simplify his "drops" process while the art and info on the card would help to inform the player of what they actually got.
Critical to this product line, however, in addition to the random packs of cards sold in FLGS across the nation, Wizards would also sell custom treasure decks, filled with the cards desired by the DM, including cutom prints of weapon/enchantment combonations not available in the randoms, and things like superior weapons, which have a narrower draw. This removes the "gotta buy 500 packs to find the exact item I want for X player"
Now, my idea of item cards would add no more to the mechanics of the game than the power cards: they aren't extra game elements, they're a different and more tangible way to interact with a game element that exists already, and further, they are a DM resource: DMs spend alot more money on D&D stuff than players do.
The biggest problem with CCG elements in an RPG are, IMO, the first "C" ie, collect-ability. If the items can easily be custom-ordered that element is removed, and they are functionally no different than high-quality handouts for your players. The random packs would simply be a convenience for the DM who wants some drops now and doesn't want to comb through any books: walk to the counter, pay $3.99, and say "Alright, draw one, that's what you find."
It's a business model they know how to sell, while D&D book sales are falling and their online subscriptions are falling even faster.
Neither of which you have any evidence of. Just as an fyi, the number of people on the DDi group here has actually increased since november.
If suddenly it was neccesary to buy booster packs of cards to play D&D, that would be a different story. But even for Gamma World, it's not "necessary" – the box comes with enough cards in its deck for the game to get zany and fun and interesting. And since everyone in the group draws the same, single deck, it's not like there's an imperative to compete between players to have the "best deck" – something that would equate to the most money spent on booster packs. Similarly, these Fortune Cards have no imperative of "gotta' collect 'em all!" because the idea behind them is that you open up a new pack in for a single game session, and players draw cards from the pack every so often to encounter random fortunes – good or ill.
It's not a CCG/TCG element; it's a definitely a card game element, however. And I don't have a big problem with card games, it's the COLLECTIBLE or TRADING part of the phrase that's the problematic part.
Otherwise, no dice.
I think it is a neat component to the game. Its like random encounter tables added back, but with cards.
Unlike with random tables, where you have the entire table in front of you, these you have to buy hoping to get that one card.
Just sell me the entire deck. That I would buy. Trying to give it to me slowly will not work.
I don't buy the gamma world packs for precisely the same reason.
I just don't like the idea that players can buy these and suddenly get a leg up on everyone else. If D&D 4e's an MMO, this seems like an attempt at introducing a "cash shop" element to D&D, and rewarding the players with money to spend.
I guess that's sorta how D&D's always been, what with different sourcebooks granting different advantages, but at least with books you can share them with everyone else. Or is that the intent with these too?
I would love for some "Critical hit" or "Critical fumble" deck like Paizo sells.
So there's no point in having a complete set, if you're not supposed to even know what's in the pile before it comes into play. It's a rather different way of implementing booster packs, I must say.
That said, I guess you could use them otherwise, and after the card's used once, I guess you could repurpose it to a deck that you shuffle and draw from later. But the idea, that WotC put out at least, was that you buy a new pack each time you want to use them.
The interest in this kind of product, whether it is a complete product or collectible, is very low. WotC figures that they can make more money by appealing to people willing to buy a box of it than to appeal to those who would buy a complete set.
And to be honest, if it were a complete set of cards, people would be calling it a money grab for not just selling a random table. And if it were a sold random table, people would complain it wasn't free on the Internet. And if it were free on the Internet... well, that way leads madness.
Product description says that these cards give characters temporary benefits.
I am not fond of the idea of people who spend more money on the game get to have more benefits for their characters. I'd much rather keep all characters are on an equal playing field.
I assume that WotC is going to require that RPGA / LFR allow players to bring these to the table.
Product description says that these cards give characters temporary benefits.
I am not fond of the idea of people who spend more money on the game get to have more benefits for their characters. I'd much rather keep all characters are on an equal playing field.
I assume that WotC is going to require that RPGA / LFR allow players to bring these to the table.
I think they effect everybody, not just one player (as far as I know). I thought it was a communal deck. It really doesn't seem a place where the "Oh no they will get a leg up in the game!" arguement works.
Product description says that these cards give characters temporary benefits.
I am not fond of the idea of people who spend more money on the game get to have more benefits for their characters. I'd much rather keep all characters are on an equal playing field.
I assume that WotC is going to require that RPGA / LFR allow players to bring these to the table.
I think they effect everybody, not just one player (as far as I know). I thought it was a communal deck. It really doesn't seem a place where the "Oh no they will get a leg up in the game!" arguement works.
I hope you are correct. Are there any examples yet of what these cards are and what effects they will have upon the game? I have poked around a bit but have not seen any.
Product description says that these cards give characters temporary benefits.
I am not fond of the idea of people who spend more money on the game get to have more benefits for their characters. I'd much rather keep all characters are on an equal playing field.
I assume that WotC is going to require that RPGA / LFR allow players to bring these to the table.
I think they effect everybody, not just one player (as far as I know). I thought it was a communal deck. It really doesn't seem a place where the "Oh no they will get a leg up in the game!" arguement works.
I hope you are correct. Are there any examples yet of what these cards are and what effects they will have upon the game? I have poked around a bit but have not seen any.
can i just say, I bought gama world, i know people who bought the booster cards for that game, so I am not in anyway anti Cards.
However, i think this is too much an add on. I really would like to see how these will work, and learn more, but fromt he little I have to go on now, I don't like them.
Strawman.
Let's say Group X has players who own the Heroes of FK or FL (everybody has the book their PCs use). One of those players decides to buy PHB X, which has, say, Goliaths in it and wants to play one.
Goliaths have advantages that some races don't. Didn't that player, by buying the PHB that nobody else uses, do roughly the same thing as somebody who dropped cash for 10 booster packs of Fortune cards?
Same thing goes for folks who used to buy Dragon mags to play the new classes (suppose you can still do that with DDI).
Paizo tried this. They found that they can make more money if they sell the decks as complete.
I would love for some "Critical hit" or "Critical fumble" deck like Paizo sells.
Several folks have said that Paizo went to the collected deck model because it sells better. Other than the logical assumption that they wouldn't continue to package their stuff one way over the other unless it sold better, do we have actual info that it does sell better for them?
Absolutely not arguing, just honestly curious. It makes sense but wondered if Paizo had said 'these just darn well sell better' or the like.
And let's not discount the 17 year-old fear of RPGers that CCGs were created to destroy RPGs. Given Paizo's fanbase, I think non-collectible cards are the only way for them to go.
Shadow Over Nentir Vale Fortune Cards, sold in booster packs of 8 cards, give players fun new ways to survive the challenges of the D&D Encounters in-store play program, as well as their home campaigns. These cards give characters fun, temporary benefits that feel different from the benefits gained from powers and feats, without adding undue complexity to the D&D game.
So yeah, these are randomised booster-packs.
PC are already very heroic and don't need those are they ? I don't think i'd use them unless they release Monsters Pack Cards too so both sides could use Power-Ceeping Card derived cheese, as low on fat as they can be.
the players have fun because it is a little reward that thier peers award, i have fun watching them having fun with the mecanics.
i like this idea. it is completely optional. i dont see why people are so up in arms about this. its not like a ccg where a player builds a deck. a player has no control over these things.
hehe...i also love watching people get pissed off, it makes me giggle.
You know, I'd rather have items. Or monsters. Idea! Both. 7 card pack has 5 items and 2 monsters. Monster "cards" are stats with the monster token, so you can punch the token out of the card, and put it back in the card for storage (and to keep it with the stats). Id'd buy tons of those.
It'd be extra cool if the monsters had some sort of connection to the items, where a monster might say "treasure - 2 common items", so you could use the cards in the booster, but it wouldn't matter what they were, or something.
Long story short, I love extra add-ons like this. It's something I can add instantaneously to a campaign. Most new content can't be added in like that (ie, a new book of classes can be useless if the party wants to stick with what they have, and no one needs a new character).
They're essentially trying to sell us these: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758.... I like the idea, and will definitely pick some up (I'm bad at dropping a few bucks and buying a single pack of SOMETHING every time I go shopping).
You know, I'd rather have items. Or monsters. Idea! Both. 7 card pack has 5 items and 2 monsters. Monster "cards" are stats with the monster token, so you can punch the token out of the card, and put it back in the card for storage (and to keep it with the stats). Id'd buy tons of those.
It'd be extra cool if the monsters had some sort of connection to the items, where a monster might say "treasure - 2 common items", so you could use the cards in the booster, but it wouldn't matter what they were, or something.
Long story short, I love extra add-ons like this. It's something I can add instantaneously to a campaign. Most new content can't be added in like that (ie, a new book of classes can be useless if the party wants to stick with what they have, and no one needs a new character).
The monsters (cards + tokens) is an excellent idea. Maybe you get 5-10 mediums of the same sort (skeletons, goblins, orcs) in addition to cool rarer monsters.
I didn't trade cards when I was 10 I'm certainly not going to trade them when I'm nearing 30.
I don't think "trading" them is the point - you'd pull one from the pack and use it in your current game, and then never again. At least, that's my understanding.
Also, Drama Cards are actually more near the mark than rewards. They seem to be mixes of cards that cause misfortune, like getting mired in trouble in the wilderness, or discovering minor pleasantries that may speed up or benefit your journey somehow. Nothing that tips the balance like an item, a boon, or character death. Might cause an encounter to start, or might cause you to stumble onto treasure early, or you might gain information from the DM about your quest, or something. That's what I've gathered.
This is extremely more of an issue if cards are intended to only be used once and then never again.
While this might be what WotC would prefer us to do, I doubt that will be how the vast majority will end up using the cards (even in encounters and LFR).
It is not as integrated into the core D&D ruleset as the Gamma World rules are, so I won't boycott D&D over this, but I also won't buy a single pack ever; nor will I play at any table that makes use of these cards; nor will I allow them in the game I am DMing.
You know, I really wish I could find out your address, just so I could mail you a pack of cards every week or so. Then, all of a sudden, I would stop, just to see your reaction.
BTW, I really think you give GW a bad rap. Just ignore the random cards (and mail me the one that comes in the boxed set). The system is downright hilarious.
You know, I really wish I could find out your address, just so I could mail you a pack of cards every week or so. Then, all of a sudden, I would stop, just to see your reaction.
Hey, if I say I hate random cards to, will you mail me a pack of cards every week or so?
I've been away from D&D since winter break (not out of any dislike for it - simply because I have a horrible habit of forgetting about one game, because I'm obsessing over a new one - heeeelllooooo Warhammer 40k), but I saw a link to the preview posted on 4chan's /tg/, and thought I'd pop over here to see what people are saying (and share my 2 bits).
First: I don't have a problem with cards. I don't even really mind random elements (ala Gamma World) if they're integrated into the whole idea of the game.
I won't personally buy any "random packs". Hell, I'm still an on-again-off-again Magic:the Gathering (casual) player, and I won't even buy those cards in random packs. Singles on the secondary market are my bag - or even better, pre-packaged sets.
Now, the cards themselves. Let me put it this way:
I am completely dissapointed with the direction they've decided to go with these.
Paizo already has a line of game cards. I love them. I actually have a (vast) collection of them - even a subscription for the last year (I'm only dropping it now because the next few sets aren't ones I want and I'm short on money - though I'd rather a Gamemastery subscription than a DDi subscription). You know the best thing about (most of) them? Game-system neutral.
But that's almost beside the point. Paizo specifically has a "Plot Twist" deck. It's what I imagined D&D's "Fortune Cards" would be more like. The PT cards offer a choice, between either a mechanical benefit (system-specific to Pathfinder, but easily adaopted to D&D4) or (more importantly) an honestly-to-goodness "Plot Twist." That second option is the far more interesting one - one can use the PT cards to randomly change the plot, to generate whole stories on the fly, or to even put a bit of narrative control into the hands of the players. Hell, I've even used them to generate character backgrounds.
Which brings me to my dissapointment with these "Fortune Cards": they're just more mechanical (combat-only, from what we've seen previewed) bonuses. It's a set of random power-creep - and that's it! Seriously, they represent just another layer of new no-cost (unless they're not telling us something - like you have to spend a HS or an AP to use one) bonuses. Hooray?
These strike me as another massive missed opportunity. Between the random disribution (not for me), the pure game-mechanics focus (uninteresting), and their nature as another layer of new "no cost" character bonuses (because D&D4 characters aren't powerful enough already, right?), they're just... well, a massive disappointment, for me.
I'll be sticking with Plot Twist cards
The idea itself though I think is great. Off hand, I'd keep the stack as a DM resource and hand out random cards when players earned them in character. Rewards for a great idea, a party saving maneuver, great role-playing, etc. They would be a game session resource meaning players would return them after the session was over (i.e. they must earn and use them in the same game session). This would reduce the need to remember who had what.
For now, i'll probably just wait until someone posts a card list and put them into a table format. Roll randomly for results. I won't be able to hand the players an actual card, but it's a start.
I love the gama world stuff, and would love to see a good card mechanic, but so far all I see is
Draw a card: trip on a rock start encounter prone
Draw a card: Freak wind storm all ranged attacks are at -2
Draw a card: Blessing of the nature spirits you and allies each heal 10hp the first time you are blodied this encounter
one of those examples is based in this thread...but they all seeam atleast to me to not bet eh same type of deck... so does anyone know what these will really be??
The big deal is that if enough of these randomized packs are bought and used, the company might determine "Hey lets lose the dice and make it all card based."
The day D&D turns all card based is the day that true D&D dies.
That's ridiculous. That ain't gonna happen and all of us, including you, already knows that.
That ain't gonna happen and all of us, including you, already knows that.
Are you realy sure about this? WotC already showed on a plenty of occasions they only care about the fincanial income and not about keeping the spirit of D&D.
But… Fortune Card previews are not as explained in the Podcast, or they changed the idea, or they poorly communicated. In any case, these are lame and will not warrant a purchase. They look pretty, though.
Also, "exclusive to game stores" – does that mean, only Game Stores will stock them, or they will only be used in events at game stores? Probably the former, meaning, no Amazon.com, no Borders/Barns&Nobles/Brick&Mortar Bookstores, no Mom&Pop Local Bookstores.
www.wizards.com/WPN/Sales/Article.aspx?x...
Today's preview:
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
They'll be used in D&D Encounters so I'll get to try them out that way.
As per the WPN link, it looks like for Encounters these will be _optional_. Important quote: "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." Pay to play because I am an "experienced player"? No thanks, WPN. I suspect that this will turn a lot of folks off to such events.
Weirdly, the sell-sheet (www.wizards.com/ContentResourcesDev/Wiza...
) mentions that they are "...intended for the D&D Encounters in-store play program..." which is bizarre if the decks are optional.
What galls me is the WPN quote "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." People are going to pick cards that already amplify their play style. Players will literally stack the deck with stuff they already do, so they will be able to do them better. If that's "focus", well DUH. Tactical opportunities? It's either going to optimize stuff your character is built for, or these options are not considered previously because you couldn't do them without the cards!
But… Fortune Card previews are not as explained in the Podcast, or they changed the idea, or they poorly communicated. In any case, these are lame and will not warrant a purchase.
Yep. Cyclopean Taking of Gas. How "good" you are based on how much dough you shill out? No thanks, WotC. I don't see many DMs being sanguine are seeing 'em at their private tables.
This is one of those "force FLGS to pledge that they won't buy any [more]/convince FLGS to sell all existing stock to you at a deep discount & chuck all of 'em in an incinerator" products.
The cards themselves seem highly situational, so either they are useless (paying money for useless stuff), or they are nigh-mandatory (paying money to stay "competitive" in the game). Either makes WotC look greedy, and it's not like they are even getting money from the secondary markets which will develop, assuming the rares are better than the commons. Not good for their PR.
And another thing... timing. You do discards/draws at the start of your turn. Some cards (Grim Determination) you play at the start of your turn. You draw/discard first? What about ongoing damage? Can it kill you before you draw or not? This isn't clear from the previews, so maybe it's "before everything else".
OK idea, bad communication, iffy implementation. All albatrosses around 4e's neck, and I _like_ 4e.
Are you realy sure about this? WotC already showed on a plenty of occasions they only care about the fincanial income and not about keeping the spirit of D&D.
I am certain that regardless of how well these Fortune Cards do financially for WotC that the official version of D&D will always involve rolling dice. And I do disagree wholeheartedly with your statement about them not caring about keeping the spirit of D&D in their products.
They'll be used in D&D Encounters so I'll get to try them out that way.
As per the WPN link, it looks like for Encounters these will be _optional_.
The fellow running D&D Encounters at my FLGS is planning on picking some up and implementing them. He's not going to require players to purchase any.
This is important for 2 reasons:
1. I'm not sure how many are in a booster pack, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 50. That means that if truly want to be surprised by these (that was the stated goal, to create some random excitement in your game) you'll have to buy multiple packs to build up even a moderately surprising deck. My guess is that if you want to have a deck that is non repetitive (ie - boring) you would need at least 100 cards. That would give you a 50-50 chance of seeing any particular card per encounter (assuming no duplicates)
2. If 50 cards get played in a single encounter, well that represents a MAJOR change to the very delicate power balance in the game. In other words: power creep. Each of the cards shown are equivalent to some powerful class powers. Basically, each card played is like a free power or feat every turn. As it stands now, even with post-MM3 damage expressions us DM's are hard pressed to design challenging encounters. 50 cards worth of benefits to the players is a big deal.
In general, I really dislike the game concept behind the cards. Where is this "fortune" coming from? Is it luck? Is it the power of the gods? Where is the flavor text for this stuff? Why every turn for every player? I see these cards being most useful as a reward from the DM for exceptional play. For example, suppose a character does exceptional well during a battle and is clearly the MVP of the session. As a reward the DM could give the character a random draw from the deck and the card can be saved for future use. In that case it's easy to explain as the blessing of a deity or magic or something. As it is written in the preview, it sounds like the gods are granting blessings every turn for every player. That's just silly.
So far, I think the cards might have a chance of being fun for limited encounters like a dungeon delve, or as an occasional reward, but there's no way I'm using them "rules as written" in my regular campaign. The dice provide all the randomness I need.
So in reality it's not a crippling expense, but what do you get for your money? I'd rather just buy another couple of books or box sets.
In general, I really dislike the game concept behind the cards. Where is this "fortune" coming from? Is it luck? Is it the power of the gods? Where is the flavor text for this stuff? Why every turn for every player?
I have to say that I'm not impressed by the cards we've been shown so far. The cards just seem a bit blah. Some fun flavor text would certainly help. Having to deal with shuffling and drawing every turn seems to be unnecessarily complication as well. I'll reserve judgment until I actually play but I have a feeling that if they're used in my games they'll wind up being houseruled to reward status or perhaps 1 card per encounter instead of per turn (or maybe 1 card per tier?)
What might be more useful, as a DM tool: Item Cards
Sold in packs with a level range clearly labeled (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc) the pack would contain 12 magic items of a random nature, and would include a high-quality illustration as well as the full magical and non-magical effects of the item in question.
The C/U/R ratio would be handled by the cards themselves, and having a "deck" of these things would be good way for a DM to randomize and simplify his "drops" process while the art and info on the card would help to inform the player of what they actually got.
Critical to this product line, however, in addition to the random packs of cards sold in FLGS across the nation, Wizards would also sell custom treasure decks, filled with the cards desired by the DM, including cutom prints of weapon/enchantment combonations not available in the randoms, and things like superior weapons, which have a narrower draw. This removes the "gotta buy 500 packs to find the exact item I want for X player"
I like this idea. Letting the players "see" what items they have would be really cool.
And Silver Blaze, please, don't ever send me packs of this bologna. I don't want to have to figure out the most ecologically friendly way of disposing of them. These, like the cards in Gamma World, are a huge turn-off to me. I will keep playing D&D. But I will never play at a table where they are used, and I will never allow them at a table where I DM.
The fluff is implied by the name and the power text; a little imagination and you have it.
The game benefits may up the ante somewhat, but one common complaint that I've heard voiced about 4E is that your character's "moves" largely remain static from one encounter to the next - this would alleviate that. It also helps to cover the limited number of options available at low level. (Round 1: Use your encounter power. Round 2+: Spam at-wills.) Even if it doesn't increase the number of powers available, the cards give you more to do.
I wouldn't object to the idea of a standard deck in which some cards appear more often than others. I wouldn't object to the idea of smaller theme-packs in which a standard set of cards relating to a particular theme or style show up ("Haunted Manor" or "Quick Thinking" or whatever else you can come up with).
The ONLY thing that I find objectionable is the collectible model. I understand that it's a model that WotC knows and tries to incorporate into their product lines as much as possible, but it's not something that I care to bring into my RPGs.
Since organized events will now require them (either outright or de facto, since you'll be disadvantaged if you don't have them), I won't be participating in any more of those, either. That, or the people who frequent the local store will collectively agree to forget that these things exist during said official events; the same collective amnesia was used to greet a number of other official rules (mainly those about only-from-these-sources character creation) in the last couple of encounter seasons.
For home games? I'm sure it won't take long before a list of the cards is posted somewhere, and at least one of our groups will probably just print out unofficial versions of the things to avoid having to deal with the collectible model. If someone reacts to cards as vampires to do garlic then they can use a d% table instead. But then that group has already been using similar 'perk' cards (usually based on references to things that happened in game, such as the infamous, "...and then I light myself on fire."), so 'official' ones won't really be adding anything new.
Strawman.
I am not sure you know what a strawman argument is. Just so you know, a strawman does not equal a "weak argument." The name does not come from the idea that your opponent's argument is like straw, which is easy to blow down. Rather, the name strawman refer to the creation of a straw effigy. Making a strawman argument is the process of misconstruing your opponent's argument, thus creating a fake position for him which is like a straw effigy, which you then proceed to argue against. Since you created the false position it is easy for you to argue against it, and this gives the illusion of a strong rhetorical position to anyone not reading/listening carefully enough to notice your fallacy.
Let's say Group X has players who own the Heroes of FK or FL (everybody has the book their PCs use). One of those players decides to buy PHB X, which has, say, Goliaths in it and wants to play one.Goliaths have advantages that some races don't. Didn't that player, by buying the PHB that nobody else uses, do roughly the same thing as somebody who dropped cash for 10 booster packs of Fortune cards?
Same thing goes for folks who used to buy Dragon mags to play the new classes (suppose you can still do that with DDI).
This part of your argument is not a strawman. However, it is a weak argument. There is a big difference between buying splat books or booster cards. First of all, all the material in the printed books is created with the attempt to keep it all balanced against what is printed in other books. Theoretically, the goliath is not going to be stronger than any of the options in any other book you already own. It is merely going to be a different option. In practice, balance is never perfect; but, the attempt to keep the books balanced against each other still minimizes the size of the deviation in power one will find. Additionally, when buying a book, because any rule in the book is not tied to the ownership of a fixed material artifact in the real world, the entire group can easily make use of the extra rules in that book. None of this is true of rules released in randomized booster packs. The rarity system intentionally creates large disparity of power between the rules found on common or rare cards. There is less of an attempt to balance rare cards, because their imbalance is what pushes consumer to buy more and more booster packs. Furthermore, since the ability to use a rule is tied to ownership of a material artifact in the real world, only one person can make use of the rules found on one card at any give moment in time. The end result is a far greater deviation in power than what is created by owning additional splat books, a deviation in power that exists along the real world economic capabilities of the players at the table...
I'd never tell a player that they couldn't use them. I hate E but I welcome it at my table all the time.
These cards really are just an additional power for the players each round (ie each player gets a stack of the rewards cards from encounters/LFR to draw randomly each turn). Each player is to have their own deck, not a communal deck. So each player will need a deck of at least 20 cards to make it random (assuming they didn't actively stack their deck with just the useful things)... a booster though might get them through a single encounter (though they might be out of cards before the encounter is over if it is complex/interesting enough)
I can't see ever making it a part of my gaming group's tables though. And I'm not at all looking forward to explaining them to new/old players in next season's encounters.
Not at my table.
And Silver Blaze, please, don't ever send me packs of this bologna. I don't want to have to figure out the most ecologically friendly way of disposing of them. These, like the cards in Gamma World, are a huge turn-off to me. I will keep playing D&D. But I will never play at a table where they are used, and I will never allow them at a table where I DM.
The best way is send them to me!
I'm excited for this new product. Along with the Nentir Vale Monster Vault, this is one of few products on my must have list.
I love minions because I love exciting changes in combat, and Ill love this too.
If I don't, its a lot less money then a book, and its something players can provide and not always have to pay for myself as a DM.
That said I understand the hate for the C in CCG. I wish I could buy all 80 cards in one shot, but that would make it the cost of a book, so CCG makes it inexpensive, and being as its not magic and Im not playing my cards against another persons I don't care if I don't have all the cards. Ill never know about the cards I don't have!
One for every player every round? Too overpowered imo.
I might use them as a DM and maybe let players draw one if they crit. in battle or for some other reason - although the rational would need to be all figured out.
It is not as integrated into the core D&D ruleset as the Gamma World rules are, so I won't boycott D&D over this, but I also won't buy a single pack ever; nor will I play at any table that makes use of these cards; nor will I allow them in the game I am DMing.
QFT
1. Encounters will be made more difficult so that players will need the powerswing these cards provide in order to survive the fights.
2. It looks like the intention is that (at least for enounters) you have to have fresh packs. You open them, flip them over and then never use the product again (except perhaps for home games). So those cards become "waste"
3. The cards only provide bonuses, so really less of a fortune and more of a straight up boon (fortunes should provide pros and cons).
none of my FLGS have enounters, sooo I have no need for them for that. I know my players aren't about to pay money for these, so they won't be getting them.
We have enough randomness with the d20 I don't need an additional random element to the game.
No thanks.
But it's not April 1 for another few months. ???
The reason Magic: The Gathering can thrive on booster packs is because of its audience and its nature. In Magic card purchasing, you are purchasing the game. Purchasing more cards is actively going to boost your ability to play in new, original ways because you need different cards to play differently. And more specifically, boosters work for at least the first while because people don't have the newest cards and figure that buying 10 of the newest booster set will yield about 100 new cards when they have no particular expectations.
But y'know, D&D isn't like Magic. As the Player's Handbook says, all you need is the first three to get going; there are 64 class/race combinations in the PHB alone, and thousands of combinations therein between paragon paths, epic destinies, and feats. Adding more and more book releases, you get some millions of variations to hold you over from now 'till the end of time. And then Wizards tries to sell you -- randomly packed -- cards that give some teeny bonus in exchange for uncertainty? No thanks, you say, and go back to your books full of vast promise.
I'd allow these in my game if someone had the balls to bring them to the table, but I certainly don't intend to buy them. I don't know anyone that would.
1. They cannot be printed out like power cards, but must be bought and collected separately: that means inaccessible where I live. Plus a needless expense.
2. Potentially unbalancing: free rerolls for example. Except for elves and avengers, everyone else normally has to work hard to get that.
3. Completely flavourless as written.
It is not as integrated into the core D&D ruleset as the Gamma World rules are, so I won't boycott D&D over this, but I also won't buy a single pack ever; nor will I play at any table that makes use of these cards; nor will I allow them in the game I am DMing.
Dungeons and Dragons has never needed the CCG element, nor will it ever. If Hasbro thinks for one solitary moment that the D&D game requires some kind of CCG element, they are sadly mistaken.
But they will only learn this after looking at the horribly failed sales reports regarding this horrendous marketing decision.
Or, perhaps, they make shed loads of money from them. Which, from my point of view, might be worse...
The cards baffle me. Selling collectible cards in a random-pack is not wise, and it's not hard to figure out why it's not wise. It's not wise for the very same reason that there's no such thing as a Magic: The Gathering splatbook. It's a different game and audience.
...
I'd allow these in my game if someone had the balls to bring them to the table, but I certainly don't intend to buy them. I don't know anyone that would.
RPGs can have all kinds of extras. Cardboard-landscape, multipul monster books, dice of many sizes/sides/colors, pre-made NPCs,... SO cards that make PCs stronger AND are official D&D products. Does not baffle me at all.
Still don't like 'em.Bring Fortune Cards. You’ll need them.
We've all seen these cards: they're powerful, superior to racial powers and at no cost but your $4... and now they've made it clear that they're balancing content based on the assumption that you have these cards.
In every edition, we've seen the publishers experiment with the concepts that define the next in the last years of the previous one. Does anyone still doubt that 5e will have a strong CCG element?
The fact both sides of the Essentials debate hate these cards is a good indicator this may not be the best idea.
We got a surprise at our FLGS, today. Free Fortune Cards for the D&D Encounters crowd.
The booster packs are 8 cards for 4 bucks. You get 1 rare, 2 uncommon, 5 common. The Rares have a color illo, the commons & uncommons a generic sort of icon. Plus, there's an insert, a card with advertising on one side, and a semi-useful extra on the other (we got an initiative tracker and a condition tracker). One of the packs did have an adverising insert with the rules to use the cards on it. They're a little scary.
No info on how to build a deck, but:
You shuffle your deck and draw a card at the start of the encounter. Using a card doesn't require an action. You discard a card after using it.
Each round you can choose to retain your current card, discard & draw a new one, or use the card (actully, the card says when you can use it, many are 'start of your turn,' meaning you probably can't use it immediately upon drawing it... probably). Anyway, depending on exactly how you read it, you might be able to use a card every round, or about every other round. There are three kinds of cards: Attack, tactic, and defense - fairly self-explanatory. Numbering indicates there are 80 cards.
The common cards are about on par with low-level utilities. In fact, some of them were almost exactly existing utilities. For instance, 'Not in the Face!' is almost exactly like the Fighter Encounter Utility 'No Opening.'
Uncommons are a little better. Rares are kick-ass, but a little funky.
Anyway, I have two boosters in front of me, here are the cards, judge for yourself:
4 Fair Fight; U; A; Play at the start of your turn.; Until the end of this turn, you gain a +2 bonus to the attack rolls of at-will attack powers.
7. Grim Determination; R; A; Play at the start of your turn.; You gain a bonus to your first attack roll this turn equal to the umber of bloodied allies within 5 squares of you.
16. Phantom Ally; C; A; Play at the start of your turn.; Durring this turn you gain combat advantage against the targets of your at-will powers.
18. Not in the Face!; U; D; Play when an enemy attacks you with combat advantage.; You do not grant combat advantage for that attack.
22. Sucker Punch; R; A; Play when you deal damage to an enemy granting you combat advantage; That enemy takes 1d6 extra damage. On a roll of 6, you also take 6 damage.
28. Beat Feet; C; D; Play at the start of your turn.; Durring this turn, you can take a move action to move up to your speed + 2. You cannot end this movement adjacent to an enemy.
36. Inner Strength; C; D; Play either when you spend a healing surge or when you take the total defense action.; You make a saving throw.
57. Get A Grip; C; T; Play when you or an ally adjacent to you fails a saving throw.; That character re-rolls the saving throw.
62. Look at Me; U; T; Play at the start of your turn.; Until the start of your next turnenemies that are adjacent to you grant combat advantage to your allies, and you grant combat advantage to enemies that are adjacent to you.
67. Push Through the Crowd; C; T; Play at the start of your turn.; Until the end of this turn, you can moe through enemies' spaces. Enemies that make opportunity attacks against you on this turn gain combat advantage for those attacks.
69. Reinforcement; U; T; Play at the start of your turn.; Once asa move action during this turn you can shift up to 3 squares to a square adjacent to an ally.
71. Risky Move; U; T; Play at the start of your turn.;Once as a move action durring this turn, you can shift up to your speed. At the end of this shift, roll d20. On a result of 9 or lower, you fall prone.
76. Trained Advance; C; T; Play when an ally within 5 squares of you takes a move action to shift.; You shift 1 square as a free action.
In case it isn't obvious:
Common
Uncommon
Rare
Attack
Defense
Tactic
I'm not expecting another set to come out but remember sales will determine if another set is released. Forums are not a direct representation of most d&d players.
But, yes, I'm not anticipating the cards to do very well.
In every edition, we've seen the publishers experiment with the concepts that define the next in the last years of the previous one. Does anyone still doubt that 5e will have a strong CCG element?
Or it will be one of the things of the past ridiculed by 5e enthusiasts ;)
Anyway, I have two boosters in front of me, here are the cards, judge for yourself:
Thanks!
I am surprised a bit by how useless (or to be charitable... conditionally useful) most of these cards are. I thought the previews were perhaps skewing my perception and that the cards would have some zingers. Nope. Few cards would find a place in a constructed deck. Rarity does not show how useful the cards are, which is bizarre. Compare Fair Fight and Phantom Ally. While supposedly very similar, would you rather have +2 to-hit or Combat Advantage against someone? Guess which card is Common and which is Uncommon.
Was the WotC model that people will only use a couple cards an encounter? There would be few opportunities to use most of 'em otherwise because their triggers aren't frequent. With some judicious deck building (ie. consisting of ~1-2 different cards repeated in a certain proportion), you could probably process 1 card/turn. Why wouldn't you do that, other than the "rip packs open and see what's there" model? The lack of deck-building guidelines makes this seem like the best choice from an optimization standpoint.
Themes:
- Help a basic attack. Sadly, these appear to be the consistently best cards. Great in Heroic. I can't imagine using them frequently in Epic. [Fair Fight; Phantom Ally]
- Do something limited based on conditional triggers you control or do something that is risky. These tend to offer flexibility, but they are things you may not want to do anyway. You would probably only stick these on your deck if you could make the conditions happen more frequently or could mitigate the problems. [Sucker Punch; Risky Move]
- Get a bonus or avoid a penalty when doing something that is dependent on external factors. You're gonna hang onto this card for how many turns until the condition occurs? The worst cards, because you often can't control when the trigger happens. [Grim Determination; Trained Advance]
i want to just go on record and say i HATE these cards, i HATE the idea behind them, and i will NEVER buy one or allow a player to use them.
There's a shocker.
Out of curiosity, is there anything you don't hate?
yeah i mean out of one side of the mouth uncommons are too powerful, then they add these free powers? give me a break
spud i love a lot of their products including a lot of essentials so its not like i hate everything. you prob never really paid much attention when i advised people that the rules compendium is the best value book they ever put out.
Honestly, that depends on the circumstances and what you're doing.
If you already have Combat Advantage against someone then +2 to hit is clearly better - if you're making an at-will attack. Some Essentials classes will heavily favor the +2 bonus for that reason. Others won't see it come up often enough to care, since the +2 to hit is useless if you aren't making an at-will attack, while Combat Advantage will help if you can't get it any other way. This is especially true if you have an ability that is triggered by Combat Advantage.
Anyway, I have two boosters in front of me, here are the cards, judge for yourself:
Thanks!
I am surprised a bit by how useless (or to be charitable... conditionally useful) most of these cards are. I thought the previews were perhaps skewing my perception and that the cards would have some zingers. Nope. Few cards would find a place in a constructed deck. Rarity does not show how useful the cards are, which is bizarre. Compare Fair Fight and Phantom Ally. While supposedly very similar, would you rather have +2 to-hit or Combat Advantage against someone? Guess which card is Common and which is Uncommon.
Combat Advantage is pretty easy to get. But, if you can't get it any other way, and you have an ability, like Sneak Attack, that works with an at-will & requires CA, yeah, Phantom Ally is great. OTOH, if you're already flanking or otherwise have CA, it does nothing, while Fair Fight gives you an unamed bonus that stacks with anything.
Was the WotC model that people will only use a couple cards an encounter? There would be few opportunities to use most of 'em otherwise because their triggers aren't frequent. With some judicious deck building (ie. consisting of ~1-2 different cards repeated in a certain proportion), you could probably process 1 card/turn. Why wouldn't you do that, other than the "rip packs open and see what's there" model? The lack of deck-building guidelines makes this seem like the best choice from an optimization standpoint.
I assume there are deck-building rules somewhere, I just didn't see them, and the rules I did see on using the cards were a bit unclear. Depending on how you read them, you might be able to play a card every single round, or it might be closer to every other round. You could discard and re-draw a card if you didn't exect the trigger to come up in the next round, or you coud keep a card (like 'Get a Grip') around for most of a combat, 'just in case.'
They seem comparable to low-level encounter utilities and crappy item dailies, for the most part. 'Get a Grip,' for instance, is slightly better than the L3 'Circlet of Second Chances' daily power (which was aparently so potentially abusive that it had to be made uncommon...).
The timing still looks ill-thought-out. While you can supposedly only play one card a round, whether you can play before drawing or draw before playing is important for planning, etc.
Sorry I couldn't be clearer on that, I didn't have the insert with the rules in front of me.
> would you rather have +2 to-hit or Combat Advantage against someone?
If you already have Combat Advantage against someone then +2 to hit is clearly better - if you're making an at-will attack.
Combat Advantage is pretty easy to get. But, if you can't get it any other way, and you have an ability, like Sneak Attack, that works with an at-will & requires CA, yeah, Phantom Ally is great. OTOH, if you're already flanking or otherwise have CA, it does nothing, while Fair Fight gives you an unamed bonus that stacks with anything.
Point taken on the Fair Fight stacking, but from my perspective it would be better in the Heroic tier to not worry about flanking, prone folks, or whatever and just have CA "on" during your turn. For many Essentials classes this could be in higher tiers, too. No positioning or feat investment needed. It's not that Fair Fight isn't cool or useful. It's not that you would only want CA on your turn with at-wills. However, there are things Phantom Ally allows a character to do which otherwise they couldn't. From that perspective, I see no justication to see why allowing _that_ is Common, but a flat +2 (even when it's a cherry on top) is Uncommon.
I assume there are deck-building rules somewhere, I just didn't see them, and the rules I did see on using the cards were a bit unclear.
www.wizards.com/dnd/files/FortuneCardRul...
So... you _have_ to load up on cards in different categories... even if no cards in that category will be useful to you. Yeah, WotC doesn't assume you will be using 1 card/turn.
www.wizards.com/dnd/files/FortuneCardRul...
So... you _have_ to load up on cards in different categories... even if no cards in that category will be useful to you. Yeah, WotC doesn't assume you will be using 1 card/turn.
Wow.
Okay, you are clearly allowed to use 1 card/round, and if you build your own deck there's no reason not to do so. You get the exact card you want 40% of the time: depending on your build, that's free CA 40% of the time, +2 to attacks 40% of the time, or extra 1d6 damage 40% of the time. Assumably the other cards you put in your deck will have some value to you as well, but even if they don't, just fill with junk and discard/redraw for a 40% chance of the card you want.
So what this means: I go out of my way to make a ranged rogue that has a good chance at getting CA every round: I got two different "Combat Advantage When..." feats and I've invested heavily in stealth. Meanwhile, the kid who's been selling his ADHD meds at school slaps down $200 bucks to buy booster packs, and gets free CA 4/10 rounds, and instead gets all the +damage feats he can think of.
Awesome.
So what this means: I go out of my way to make a ranged rogue that has a good chance at getting CA every round: I got two different "Combat Advantage When..." feats and I've invested heavily in stealth. Meanwhile, the kid who's been selling his ADHD meds at school slaps down $200 bucks to buy booster packs, and gets free CA 4/10 rounds, and instead gets all the +damage feats he can think of.
EXACTLY. Why go frostcheese when cardcheese frees up feat+item slots? Discounting all that "self-worth" and "not wanting to patronize a goofy scheme" stuff.
I think WotC assumed the "use random packs" method will be used so folks will use a couple cards in an encounter. However, I cannot imagine that anyone seriously considering using Fortune Cards will do anything EXCEPT construct decks based around using useful cards as frequently as possible.
Show
Or, the cynical version is that WotC KNOWS people will construct decks because it's so much more effective, and WotC deliberately designed it this way to sell more packs. I do not believe it, but I figured I'd put it out these as someone else will spew it eventually.
[sblock The decks should be small]
But larger than a booster pack. You have to buy 5 packs before Hot Dogs (Cards) = Hot Dog Buns (Deck)... Yes you will need 5 packs, to make 4 decks (or one 40 card deck)
But isn't the standard table size 5 players with 4e? So you still need to buy 2 more packs for a table of 5 players. But at least now you have 6 extra cards which you might need...
[/sblock]
[sblock The decks need to be balanced]
There are 8 cards in a pack, and 3 card types, of which your deck must be built approximately balanced between the 3 types. Now I haven't seen enough people's packs, but how close are they going to be split 3, 3, 2 which is the best possible split you can get of the cards, and just hope all of your packs don't have Tactics being the one with 2 cards. (Otherwise out of our 5 packs above, you could only make 3 10-card decks, or 1 20-card deck and 1 10-card deck, or a single 30 card deck)
[/sblock]
[sblock There's an upside to this!]
Since you just bought (hopefully just) 7 packs of cards for your table of 5, there should be a very good chance that you have all the rules you need to play with these. That's right, even the rules are collectable!
[/sblock]
[sblock The Moral of this story..]
$$$$$$$$
[/sblock]
Ok, lets look past CCG as just trying to increase profits, what else do we see?
[sblock The decks should be small]
But larger than a booster pack. You have to buy 5 packs before Hot Dogs (Cards) = Hot Dog Buns (Deck)... Yes you will need 5 packs, to make 4 decks (or one 40 card deck)
But isn't the standard table size 5 players with 4e? So you still need to buy 2 more packs for a table of 5 players. But at least now you have 6 extra cards which you might need...
[/sblock]
[sblock The decks need to be balanced]
There are 8 cards in a pack, and 3 card types, of which your deck must be built approximately balanced between the 3 types. Now I haven't seen enough people's packs, but how close are they going to be split 3, 3, 2 which is the best possible split you can get of the cards, and just hope all of your packs don't have Tactics being the one with 2 cards. (Otherwise out of our 5 packs above, you could only make 3 10-card decks, or 1 20-card deck and 1 10-card deck, or a single 30 card deck)
[/sblock]
[sblock There's an upside to this!]
Since you just bought (hopefully just) 7 packs of cards for your table of 5, there should be a very good chance that you have all the rules you need to play with these. That's right, even the rules are collectable!
[/sblock]
[sblock The Moral of this story..]
$$$$$$$$
[/sblock]
+1
+2. And, when me an lokiare agree on something, something is going horribly wrong.
I completely agree with you there... oh wait...
Okay, you are clearly allowed to use 1 card/round, and if you build your own deck there's no reason not to do so. You get the exact card you want 40% of the time: depending on your build, that's free CA 40% of the time, +2 to attacks 40% of the time, or extra 1d6 damage 40% of the time.
So, you draw a new card if you don't have one /at the start of your turn/ and a lot (a whole lot) of cards say 'play at the start of your turn...' So, depending on how that shakes out, it might be as little as a card every-other-round. But that's worst case. That's still several cards per combat. Each of those cards is about on par with an encounter utility, so that's quite a surge of power inflation at low level, when you might have only one utility (or none at 1st). Low level, like Encounters.
So what this means: I go out of my way to make a ranged rogue that has a good chance at getting CA every round: I got two different "Combat Advantage When..." feats and I've invested heavily in stealth. Meanwhile, the kid who's been selling his ADHD meds at school slaps down $200 bucks to buy booster packs, and gets free CA 4/10 rounds, and instead gets all the +damage feats he can think of.
Or you could just play a Thief, and use a move action each round to get basically automatic CA...
...
Oh, and a deck is done in multiples of 10 cards. And booster packs have /8/ cards... so you can't just buy a booster and use it. You have to buy at least two ... and can't use 6 of 'em....
At least Gamma World had a minimum deck size of 7...
Or you could just play a Thief, and use a move action each round to get basically automatic CA...
Or my duelist rogue picks the appropriate powers so that he has CA or has something like it all the time too...it is possible this was already happening before essentials.
Man made diamonds are now indistinguishable from real ones they arent a different thing ... the material for making them is a ummm carbon. The process for making them has its costs but nowhere near what they used to go for or do go for in all likelihood. The diamond companies started marking harvested ones to indicate where they were mined.. that mark is the only difference.
And the mark is relevant, because it says "this is more expensive" and that's the entire point. Diamods exist to show (1) how rich you are, based on the amount/size of diamonds you can afford and (2) how much cash you are willing to sacrifice to show someone how much you love them.
Meh, diamonds are pretty and good at cutting things, and I think a couple other uses and a manufacturers mark is like a different brand name on something making it expensive (and its a micro-small brandname too)....its more than silly but the word for it isnt polite. Diamond prices will drop because they arent really rare anymore.
DragonPimp, a suggestion for you (which I can tell from reading all the posts that several on here will agree with): Imagine yourself as strictly a 'suit' (who plays neither rpgs or ccgs) in charge of the way the company should go to increase the likihood of continuing to gain a bigger repeat customer base. Read over this entire forum from start to finish to see what the 'majority' of input from your customer base is stating about their opinion on introducing the ccg (more money you pay the better your character will be compared to the other characters on YOUR OWN TEAM) elements to their role-playing game. Should you find in favor of your (real life) preference you would have a short career at the company as in the end your higher-ups in the heirachry of the company for deciding to 'force-feed' product the majority of their huge customer base has clearly stated "NOT A GOOD IDEA!"
Some people have made very good points to you to try to help you understand the poor business decision making these cards 'core' would be. One of the best was comparing what DnD is supposed to be (a PvE) to what you feel DnD is (a PVP). Old School DnD has been dubbed 'player vs DM'.
You would probably like the roleplaying game Paranoia as it has the PVP aspect you seem to enjoy and believe to 'thrive on'.
Now, playing the devil's advocate, DragonPimp, you do make some good points. Sadly, they are poor points when referring to a table top role-playing game (as opposed to a table top roll-playing game). By chance if you did not start playing DnD until 4E it is understandable why you have not grasped what the 'soul' of DnD is. Great news for you is your thinking puts you on par with the current existing braniacs who are currently in charge of (destroying) the official Dungeons & Dragons brand name.
*****
I am surprised no one on here noticed the VERY BIG FORESHADOWING REVEAL that is in the name that the company gave the fortune cards....as like magic it is an 'expansion' name. This tells us that THEY PLAN ON RELEASING FUTURE EXPANSION SETS. What does this mean? Many on here can easily deduce the answer as their posts show they are very insightful about what 'makes or breaks' a company keeping the majority of their LOAYAL customer base. Sadly, fortune card gambit will be one that will encourage new PVP players to join and lose the ones who know what Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson had in mind when they created the game in the first place. They changed the PVP game into a PVE 'tell a great story' game.
btw, Dragonpimp: You stated in one of your posts you feel that the previous companies were responsible for the game losing sales. Are you aware of how many DECADES DnD has been a dominant force in the roleplaying industry?
****
Wizards, LISTEN UP! make two different categories at your 'official games', one that utilizes your VERY BLATANT ATTEMPT to get people to invest more money against their friends to have the 'better deck' (and do not insult our collective intelligence by attempting to deny that fact)...and another category that does not utilize the cards EVER. This will allow you to keep more of your 'loyal purist roleplayers' who spend a lot of money at gaming conventions on your products as well as letting the 'vultures' have 'feeding frenzies' on buying up as much fortune card boosters as their grubby hands, wallets and pockets full of loose change will get them.
****
One of my dream jobs was always included one day working for TSR, even Wizards when they showed the great, natural evolution they took the game with 3.0 and 3.5 edition.
That dream wavered significantly when they turned DnD into a tabletop MMO format.
It completely died when I discovered they actually decided to turn the game into a the PVP/"Most prestigious player=the best deck=the most money to spend to make 'my character is better than your character' marketing grab that fortune cards most definitely are.
Anyone else having flashbacks to your childhood arguments with your friends that involved saying these words "My dad is better than your dad!" ?
****
How many people remember when Wizards staff members made podcasts before 4E came out stating how one of the main goals for 4E was to make all classes balanced no matter what level they were? That the overriding theme of the new edition was player balance no matter what choices you made?
Three years later those words are thrown out the proverbial window...
When did Wizards start hiring politicians?
****
One thing I thought of as soon as I started to read up on fortune cards was how to take Wizards BAD idea and turn their product into a GOOD group asset. kudos mention to Garthanos for thinking along the same lines for posting his suggestion of a communal deck.
Yes, keep the cards (and keep them non-core) but only one deck is used for the entire group. Players who want to spend money on boosters would finally have to do something that has driven many DMs over the years ungrateful to some of their players. By making the cards become a communal deck instead of personal decks collectors could still pay money to make the best deck possible, but their whole party (i.e. their friends) gain the benefit of their 'best deck that money can buy' This removes the 'unbalancing' factor in relation to the other players at the table.
An idea I have is making the cards a communal deck and players only get to draw a card when they spend an action point. Elite and Solo Monsters also get to draw a card from the deck when they spend an action point as well. By making it cost an action point to draw a card normal monsters and minions never get to draw and only the tougher underbosses and bosses can use the cards against the players it creates both a balance between the players themselves and between the player characters and the monsters.
Any input on my suggestion above to combine the cards as a communal deck and requiring an action point to gain the benefit of drawing (and using) a card?
*****
4E has a decent rules set, though I do not doubt many like myself consider Pathfinder to be "The True 4th Edition".
Wizards has made themselves the "Axl Rose and the 'legal' Guns N'Roses band" and made Paizo/Pathfinder "The rest of the 'true' Guns N'Roses band" of the rpg community.
Thank the gods that Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson both died before seeing what tragedy has befallen their beloved legacy.
One of my dream jobs was always included one day working for TSR, even Wizards when they showed the great, natural evolution they took the game with 3.0 and 3.5 edition. That dream wavered significantly when they turned DnD into a tabletop MMO format. It completely died when I discovered they actually decided to turn the game into a the PVP/"Most prestigious player=the best deck=the most money to spend to make 'my character is better than your character' marketing grab that fortune cards most definitely are. Anyone else having flashbacks to your childhood arguments with your friends that involved saying these words "My dad is better than your dad!" ?
Do you or have you actively play/played 4e? I ask this question because of your comment on "Tabletop MMO".
I have been an avid roleplayer since the days of the original redbox - playing many different games, including every version of D&D.
At the same time, I have played MUDs and MUSHs, I've played Everquest back when only a portion of your screen was actual graphics, I was there on release of EQ2 and World of Warcraft with accounts in each.
The only thing so drastically different from previous editions is that they actually created defined roles and tried to create some balance among the classes - and the roles aren't really anything new - fighters often were the "tanks", clerics were the "healers", rogues always did the "DPS", and in most cases Wizards did the "AOE to take out lots of weak things" ever since 1st edition. There is overlap, but they weren't new to the game.
That's it.
There is no other major changes to the game to make it feel anything like any MMO I have ever played. So, please let me know what elements you feel in 4e make it clearly a tabletop MMO.
How many people remember when Wizards staff members made podcasts before 4E came out stating how one of the main goals for 4E was to make all classes balanced no matter what level they were? That the overriding theme of the new edition was player balance no matter what choices you made? Three years later those words are thrown out the proverbial window... When did Wizards start hiring politicians?
The classes are balanced across each other at the same level, yes there are a couple of classes that were a bit more powerful than others - but NOTHING like a 10th level wizard vs. a 10th level fighter in 2nd or 3rd.
One of my dream jobs was always included one day working for TSR, even Wizards when they showed the great, natural evolution they took the game with 3.0 and 3.5 edition. That dream wavered significantly when they turned DnD into a tabletop MMO format. It completely died when I discovered they actually decided to turn the game into a the PVP/"Most prestigious player=the best deck=the most money to spend to make 'my character is better than your character' marketing grab that fortune cards most definitely are. Anyone else having flashbacks to your childhood arguments with your friends that involved saying these words "My dad is better than your dad!" ?
Do you or have you actively play/played 4e? I ask this question because of your comment on "Tabletop MMO".
I have been an avid roleplayer since the days of the original redbox - playing many different games, including every version of D&D.
At the same time, I have played MUDs and MUSHs, I've played Everquest back when only a portion of your screen was actual graphics, I was there on release of EQ2 and World of Warcraft with accounts in each.
The only thing so drastically different from previous editions is that they actually created defined roles and tried to create some balance among the classes - and the roles aren't really anything new - fighters often were the "tanks", clerics were the "healers", rogues always did the "DPS", and in most cases Wizards did the "AOE to take out lots of weak things" ever since 1st edition. There is overlap, but they weren't new to the game.
That's it.
There is no other major changes to the game to make it feel anything like any MMO I have ever played. So, please let me know what elements you feel in 4e make it clearly a tabletop MMO. How many people remember when Wizards staff members made podcasts before 4E came out stating how one of the main goals for 4E was to make all classes balanced no matter what level they were? That the overriding theme of the new edition was player balance no matter what choices you made? Three years later those words are thrown out the proverbial window... When did Wizards start hiring politicians?
The classes are balanced across each other at the same level, yes there are a couple of classes that were a bit more powerful than others - but NOTHING like a 10th level wizard vs. a 10th level fighter in 2nd or 3rd.
Yes, one of my friends prefer to run 4E (though some of our larger group adamantly refuses to play 4E ever again).
Like I said, I can appreciate many aspects of 4E. Their rule set is the cleanest and easiest to run out of all the editions (with the possible exception being the original Basic rules).
Tabletop MMO. I used that comparison reference as that is what one of my players calls it as do many others. They do so for two main reasons: the way the powers are set up and that at higher levels you 'upgrade' existing powers, though that transition does not really make 'in-game' sense. In essence players have a collection of 'power cards' that they decide to 'tap' on their turn. Most players will have more written their on 'power cards' than on their character sheet.
To be fair 4E is not the first edition to do something like that. One of the few things in 3E that did not make 'in-game' sense is how spontaneous casters would forget how cast some spells that they have been using since they first started casting spells. From the game balance perspective it can be seen why spontaneous casters gain the option to 'swap out' spells known. In game it does not make sense (unless in game a god of magic has strict rules regarding the power and knowledge spontaneous casters have...giving them the option to 'mindwipe' some of their memory to be able to 'have room' for new spell knowledge.
To recap and clarify, I was not the one who to say they are attempting to turn 4E into an MMO 'feel' version of DnD. The glove may not fit perfectly, though it does not fall off very easily though...It would have been more accurately to say they turned the game into something that some players has too much of a 'MMO feel' to it. For the record it is not clearly an MMO. 4E would transfer quite nicely and smoothly into an actual MMO rpg. Would you agree with that?
I was not as clear in the second part you highlighted. I feel the classes ARE balanced at all levels. I was referring to the introduction of fortune cards putting a wrench in the whole 'balanced across the board' theme that has been the foundation of 4E up until this point.
Will you agree that the introduction of fortune cards does sometihng (product wise) that they have never done to the pure DnD rpg before...which is make a field which pits player (not character) vs. player in the attempt to get the best cards/deck, etc.
Someone in an earlier post (Dragonpimp) compared buying fortune cards as the same as buying accesory books. He failed to realize that when a player or DM buys a book and the DM allows the material to be used in his game it opens up the content for all the players, not just the person who bought the book. Fortune cards, as they currently are, do not promote 'balanced game' as it biases the players who spend the most money. This is why people have been referring to not using them..even one person stated on here that the introduction of 'ccg' into the rpg has made wizards lose him as a customer. He is a representative of a larger group of people who feel the same way.
Ask yourself this...how can it be good marketing policy when it costs you to lose some of your loyal customer base?
A few people said (and they were right) wizards knows how to market ccgs. They are making the mistake of attempting to turn dnd into a hybrid rpg/ccg.
Any KoDT fans on here? 'Heidi' is the one repsonsible for deciding to give DnD a ccg aspect.
Readers familiar with KoDT will know how 'player coupons' (aka fortunes card) can create very bad situations.
Tabletop rpgs are able to handle the more 'physically aggresive' players than ccgs can. Does everyone forget how very bad Pokemon made schoolyards in the first few years that game was around. Violence escalating so badly (at grade school) that several schools banned Pokemon cards at the schools outright. By introducing ccgs to the classic tabletop rpg (referring to the brand name, not edition)....hopefully this time, unlike with Pokemon, there will not be any literal blood spilled...
Fortune cards could have been handled a lot better...as I have already suggested in my original post.
Fortune cards are a choice - you don't have to use them, but the players who do will probably outshine you. If you ban then from your group, you should know that groups which do allow them will be able to take on more powerful foes than you and are probably having even more awesome adventures.
My groups have been using cards and they rock. Deal with it.
Tabletop MMO. I used that comparison reference as that is what one of my players calls it as do many others. They do so for two main reasons: the way the powers are set up and that at higher levels you 'upgrade' existing powers, though that transition does not really make 'in-game' sense. In essence players have a collection of 'power cards' that they decide to 'tap' on their turn. Most players will have more written their on 'power cards' than on their character sheet.
It grinds my gears when people make that comparison, especially when their comparrisons are not elements that make an MMO an MMO...
To the first point, powers upgraded in similar manner in previous editions, as you say 3E had some situations, but 1st and 2nd wasn't exempt: How was the wizard able to gain a whole new spell level? Why does the fireball spell gain an extra d6 of damage every level up? Why does the cleric suddenly get to destroy undead instead of turn them? If the answer is "the characters got more powerful" then the answer works fine for 4e.
The second point on tapping of power cards - the cards are a way to organize, but are not required. You can (and I have) take any power from 4e and rewrite it as something from 3rd and I think most 3rd players would have given it more chance. Similarly - 3rd edition powers can be writen as 4th very easily. Isn't the power attack feat really just an at-will ability? Previous editions also had "cool downs".
I don't mind that people don't like 4e as a system. It is different, if you don't like the character balance (for example) then yeah, 4e isn't really your game. I just want people to be clear on their reasons why they don't like the game. Many people who make statements such as "4e is an MMO" say so without really playing the game.
To be fair 4E is not the first edition to do something like that. One of the few things in 3E that did not make 'in-game' sense is how spontaneous casters would forget how cast some spells that they have been using since they first started casting spells. From the game balance perspective it can be seen why spontaneous casters gain the option to 'swap out' spells known. In game it does not make sense (unless in game a god of magic has strict rules regarding the power and knowledge spontaneous casters have...giving them the option to 'mindwipe' some of their memory to be able to 'have room' for new spell knowledge.
Why did it make sense that wizards could memorize spells and then once they have cast it, it is struck from their mind? If you had played GURPS prior to coming to 1st edition D&D it would make no in-game sense why you could never learn a basic spell about Fire but then all of a sudden learn fireball (where in GURPS you need to learn the basics of fire spells before you learn to cast a fireball).
Some things only make sense to us because it's what we've always known.
To recap and clarify, I was not the one who to say they are attempting to turn 4E into an MMO 'feel' version of DnD. The glove may not fit perfectly, though it does not fall off very easily though...It would have been more accurately to say they turned the game into something that some players has too much of a 'MMO feel' to it. For the record it is not clearly an MMO. 4E would transfer quite nicely and smoothly into an actual MMO rpg. Would you agree with that?
Actually I don't think so. 4e is more tactical. MMO aren't really tactical in the same way. 3e actually made more sense as an MMO (which is why it was made into one) because at that point it was tactical, but not as much as 4e.
Also, no MMO really has roleplaying in it. You could make a 4e MMO, like they made a 3e MMO, and just like there were many 2e video games - but it's more taking a square peg and putting it into a round hole - you have to cut off some things to make it fit.
4e might make a good game like "Final Fantasy Tactics" - but it would make a crappy MMO.
I was not as clear in the second part you highlighted. I feel the classes ARE balanced at all levels. I was referring to the introduction of fortune cards putting a wrench in the whole 'balanced across the board' theme that has been the foundation of 4E up until this point.
Will you agree that the introduction of fortune cards does sometihng (product wise) that they have never done to the pure DnD rpg before...which is make a field which pits player (not character) vs. player in the attempt to get the best cards/deck, etc.
I would agree if the cards had actually made an impact. But take a look at the forums, no one really seems to care. Before you posted, it had been 2 weeks since there was activity in this thread.
There is no "best deck discussion" on the optimization board. There is no "Help my players are too powerful" on What's a DM to do. No "How do I improve my fighter deck" on the Player boards.
The cards have basically been a non-impact. They are too situational to use consistantly. Many of the posts in this thread were before the cards came out (including mine!) - once they came out, and people tried them - it was pretty much "oh, that's it?"
If you look at the complete list (I had compiled it, link is below in my signature) - there hasn't been a post in there in some time. None of them are that great. I made index card versions of them for my group (since I see no purpose to buy them) - and even with an optimized deck they aren't used so much to unbalance things.
Someone in an earlier post (Dragonpimp) compared buying fortune cards as the same as buying accesory books. He failed to realize that when a player or DM buys a book and the DM allows the material to be used in his game it opens up the content for all the players, not just the person who bought the book. Fortune cards, as they currently are, do not promote 'balanced game' as it biases the players who spend the most money. This is why people have been referring to not using them..even one person stated on here that the introduction of 'ccg' into the rpg has made wizards lose him as a customer. He is a representative of a larger group of people who feel the same way.
If you are that player, you might be allowed to use the material, but if you don't own the book - when are you really going to get to look through it and make any intelligent decisions? If a player buys cards to make a deck, would he not have left overs other players can use to make their own decks?
Ask yourself this...how can it be good marketing policy when it costs you to lose some of your loyal customer base?
A few people said (and they were right) wizards knows how to market ccgs. They are making the mistake of attempting to turn dnd into a hybrid rpg/ccg.
Any KoDT fans on here? 'Heidi' is the one repsonsible for deciding to give DnD a ccg aspect.
Readers familiar with KoDT will know how 'player coupons' (aka fortunes card) can create very bad situations.
Tabletop rpgs are able to handle the more 'physically aggresive' players than ccgs can. Does everyone forget how very bad Pokemon made schoolyards in the first few years that game was around. Violence escalating so badly (at grade school) that several schools banned Pokemon cards at the schools outright. By introducing ccgs to the classic tabletop rpg (referring to the brand name, not edition)....hopefully this time, unlike with Pokemon, there will not be any literal blood spilled...
I'm sorry but the last paragraph has me laughing - seriously? If players haven't snapped because the DM: gave another player a better magic item, killed off another player, etc. Then the cards won't have that much an impact because they aren't that powerful.
Fortune cards could have been handled a lot better...as I have already suggested in my original post.
I want to note I hate the fortune cards as they were created, but they have had vitually no impact on the game at all.
Actually read my full message before critiquing it. One of the reasons my post is as long as it was is because I was putting everything into one post as opposed to being a 'post junkie' like some people on forums do (that annoy the *censored* out of many other people who post on the boards). It counters some points (like yours), gives kudos to someone who made a great suggestion, gives suggestions for how groups that include players that do not like the ccg 'player vs player' aspect can have a good compromise so that players can still make use of their cards at tables with DMs who outrightly refuse to allow players to use their personal decks at their table.
Also reread your last post...
your words "If you ban then from your group, you should know that groups which do allow them will be able to take on more powerful foes than you" I take it you are in agreement that some are saying that Wizards is going to make future aventures/monsters/etc. tougher because of the 'assumption' that groups are utilizing fortune cards. If they are/going to do that, it supports the concerns people have made about them trying to turn the rpg into a ccg/rpg.
I do not doubt the cards will give improved enjoyment of the game that the cards some players/groups. All of your posts make it very clear you think 'my way is the only way'. Others have pointed out to you that the spirit and intent of DnD has always been as a 'cooperative game'.
Scott:
To be clear, I like 4E (for the most part) though my edition of choice is 3E. The 'natural evoution' of the game that Paizo has done with their Pathfinder line is impressive. Have you checked it out the Pathfinder Core Rulebook yet?
What I have said myself of 4E is that it is a great (and far better) rules set for D&D Miniatures.
My one friend was the one who has equated it to an 'MMO-esque' system has played several MMOs and others he plays with feel the same way.
Thanks for letting me know about your link to the full list. I will check it out soon.
There are roleplaying on MMO's. WoW (and possibly others) have servers that are roleplay immersion ones.
I agree that all editions have had aspects that do not make the best 'in game sense'. I have never had a problem so much with wizards forgetting their spells as they cast them as in essence you could view that part of their brain is wired as a 'spell chalkboard' and as they cast a spell the laws of magic state they are using the chalkboard in their brain as if it was like a scroll. My main thing has always been spontaneous casters who do not forget their spells...months or years later 'permanently forgetting' one of the spells that has been a staple and they have cast dozens, and perhaps hundreds or thousands of times already before it gets 'wiped' to make room for a different spell.
The 3.5 Unearthed Arcana and Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords books had a few otional and core rules aspects that are now primary rules in 4E (one of the most noticeably is 'encounter' powers from the ToB).
I am currently working on an optional rules set for DnD Miniatures that make use of the 4E ruleset and fortunes cards. I have had success with making optional rules sets that fans of the game I created them for enjoyed. I am sure players like DragonPimp would enjoy such rules (as his posts have clearly indicated he enjoys 'slayer' characters. Other types of players might enjoy them a fair bit as well. Like the first time I did such an optional rules set it is not because I do not think the original rules set is bad, it is actually because I am impressed by the rule set and think of an alternate system that others will enjoy. In my original such rules set it allowed players to make use of the many of the cards they felt were 'useless' in the main rules. It also allowed them to create their very own 'player character' so to speak, as opposed to having to choose from among one of the official 'pre-generated PCs' the game offered.
Nice to see the forums include people like you, who can have intelligent debates, Scott.
It is evident that there are ones who do not know how to very well as well.
What aggravates me (and is the reason several others are too) is because of the FACT that Wizards has decided to go the route of not only introducing ccg aspects to the game but making them CORE rules. They are now part of the official sanctioned rules. That is why one of my suggestions was for them to divide their official sanctioned games into two categories: one that utilize the cards and one that never does.
Scott, the first (they plan to create more, as is evident by the name of the existing set), which means like Magic the cards will eventually become more powerful than previous sets, new rules will be added (and to be fair this is not strictly a MtG flaw that some people hate, as some other companies decide to go that route with their ccgs).
This first set of fortune cards may have been made intentionally with a minor barely noticable effect on the balance of the game.
Again the cards themselves...not a bad idea. making them into a ccg...a bad idea. Make the cards optional and sell them in complete sets. That would have prevented most, if not all, such 'debate' over them. Would you agree with that?
My shortest post just for you.
Fortune cards are not 'a choice' as you said. Wizards decided to make them mandatory in sanctioned games.
To be clear, I like 4E (for the most part) though my edition of choice is 3E. The 'natural evoution' of the game that Paizo has done with their Pathfinder line is impressive. Have you checked it out the Pathfinder Core Rulebook yet?
I have yes, I do like it (and I still like 3e, I do own every officially printed book ) but I prefer 4e because it's easier to build encounters faster for my games, but I don't like the stance that was taken for most of 3e (which has carried over at least somewhat to PF) in that the game is based on system mastery - where two characters of the same level can have a very different power level when you don't take gear into consideration.
That rule set isn't good for my group because I have a mixture of players, and in previous games those who had the time to system master would make characters that far exceeded the capabilities of my friends who were interested more "beer and pizza" gaming and just wanted to hang out. It was harder to make encounters that were balanced, especially when the group split up. The optimized characters could usually hold their own, the non-optimized not so much. This led to some hard feelings among the group. Those who didn't optimize didn't want to feel like D&D was homework to them to make the best character - they just came to have fun.
Switching to 4e has been great. The optimizers have been able to make characters that still pull a good % higher DPR than the rest of the group, but now if they seperate, I can just knock the appropriate number of monsters off the battle field and it's a balanced encounter either way.
What I have said myself of 4E is that it is a great (and far better) rules set for D&D Miniatures.
For combat yes, I would agree that 4e is most geared for battlemap combat. One poster on here, Wrecan, has posted a great blog on how to do purely narrative combat in 4e, and it works well! (as well as pure narrative combat has always worked in my experience).
But that said, 4e works as well with non-combat situations as well, though I'll admit the books have skill challenges worded very wonky, but with practice I've done entire adventures that didn't have more than one or two combats, and it worked all within the rule set of 4e without any house rules. (These skill challenge rules are something I've adapted to my prior edition games as well, 4e is just the first time I remember them being printed).
My one friend was the one who has equated it to an 'MMO-esque' system has played several MMOs and others he plays with feel the same way.
It will probably always be a pet peeve of mine, probably because I had a very bad encounter with a PF player at a local book store. While picking up one of the 4e books to take a look at it, this guy who was standing there looking through the PF books got up and said "oh, you dont' want to play that crappy table top WoW wannabe - here play a real game" as he handed me PF.
Being both a 4e player and a WoW player, I was somewhat put off and have been very defensive about that since.
Thanks for letting me know about your link to the full list. I will check it out soon.
There are roleplaying on MMO's. WoW (and possibly others) have servers that are roleplay immersion ones.
I have tried them, the problem being the roleplaying is all within the realm of just stories players tell - which has no impact to the rest of the game world. They are a fun diversion for a bit, but I want my roleplaying to mean something.
When you go out into fields and slay 20 orcs, 5 minutes later those orcs "respawn". I can go out and save the king and a few minutes later he will despawn so the next player can do the same thing. You go through story lines but the world never changes (or changes little). You make multiple runs through the same dungeon to get marks and points to upgrade gear so you can run harder dungeons to earn marks and points...
To me those are the TRUE elements of an MMO - it's a static world filled with multiple players. The world changes very slowly, if at all (usually a year or so after something comes out they may release an expansion or a patch).
D&D is nothing like that - if dungeons become repopulated after I clear it out, it's not going to be the same monsters - a tribe of goblins might go in and take over the kobold keep I just cleared, but the world is moving forward.
There's no powerleveling, no gold sellers, no twinking characters out (ok, well there can be that, but not in the same way).
I'm not set out to change anyone mind on it, but I do like at least stating my case. It makes me feel better.
I agree that all editions have had aspects that do not make the best 'in game sense'. I have never had a problem so much with wizards forgetting their spells as they cast them as in essence you could view that part of their brain is wired as a 'spell chalkboard' and as they cast a spell the laws of magic state they are using the chalkboard in their brain as if it was like a scroll. My main thing has always been spontaneous casters who do not forget their spells...months or years later 'permanently forgetting' one of the spells that has been a staple and they have cast dozens, and perhaps hundreds or thousands of times already before it gets 'wiped' to make room for a different spell.
Some rules are wonky, I'll admit. I'm not a big fan of simply gaining powers when you level up in any edition, IIRC 3rd was when they started to implement that. 2nd edition was bad with dual classing - where you could go up to level 5 as a wizard and then have to never be a wizard again until you hit level 6 as a different class. 3rd also got to be a bit much with multiclassing - a couple of classes were fine, but it got a bit crazy once you started added in the multitude of classes - prior to 3.5 taking the 1 level of ranger JUST to get some free feats was a bit much for me. 4e annoys me that every magic item has the exact same value across each level. I understand why they did it (for balance) but it's one of those rules I'm not 100% fond of.
The 3.5 Unearthed Arcana and Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords books had a few otional and core rules aspects that are now primary rules in 4E (one of the most noticeably is 'encounter' powers from the ToB).
I have both those books, very good books I've used them in games.
I am currently working on an optional rules set for DnD Miniatures that make use of the 4E ruleset and fortunes cards. I have had success with making optional rules sets that fans of the game I created them for enjoyed. I am sure players like DragonPimp would enjoy such rules (as his posts have clearly indicated he enjoys 'slayer' characters. Other types of players might enjoy them a fair bit as well. Like the first time I did such an optional rules set it is not because I do not think the original rules set is bad, it is actually because I am impressed by the rule set and think of an alternate system that others will enjoy. In my original such rules set it allowed players to make use of the many of the cards they felt were 'useless' in the main rules. It also allowed them to create their very own 'player character' so to speak, as opposed to having to choose from among one of the official 'pre-generated PCs' the game offered.
Nice to see the forums include people like you, who can have intelligent debates, Scott.
It is evident that there are ones who do not know how to very well as well.
I've tweaked some of the 4e rules myself, to help make one of my friends who is a die hard 3e fan feel a bit better, I made some changes to ritual casting. Basically he memorizes spells just like a wizard did in 2nd or 3rd. Rituals have spell levels (though he still can't learn it until he has reached the appropriate level). They still have casting times (though I have changed it to take 1 standard action for every 10 minutes the ritual would take), they still require components, and now they have % chance to learn.
As a final step, I have converted many of the non-combat focused spells from 2e and 3e into rituals, and he is quite happy that he gets to feel more powerful (when in fact the impact to the game was minimal).
In the end I'm just glad you enjoy D&D in some form or fashion, I enjoy all the editions - 4e is just my edition of choice because of the streamlined rules and balanced play.
Re the fortune cards - many people have said if they had just come out as a deck - similar to the paizo plot twist cards, it wouldn't have been so bad.
I have yet to buy a single pack. I refuse to - I've played magic for however many years it's been out there and I would get 15 cards, with full artwork, for $4. Now here they try to sell a product with 8 cards, only rares have artwork, for $4?
I used to at least justify the purchase on magic because I used the cards in tournaments with cash prizes. No such thing exists for D&D. The closest you get is the encounters and LFR games (and occasional conventsion) - but those are just fun, not pro tour style tournaments.
So it's a product - it's an accessory, people who want them can buy them and DMs can disallow them as desired. If they ever produce a product that starts to necessitate the cards, either I'll continue with making index card knock offs from spoiler lists, make my own cards up (not hard really), or simply stop buying products.
So I agree from what you said before that it's bad to lose customers from a marketing decision, though I think alot was a knee jerk reaction - people who are just so mad the product exists at all, that even though they would never be required to use it, it's existance somehow makes their games bad or something
*shrug* I don't always understand people.
I have read several of the cards. I agree that for the most part they give many minor effects, and the ones with the more major effects (of the ones I have read so far) is a gamble of gaining a decent size advantage or disadvantage of the same magnitude. Gambler's Solace is a good example of this, especially if used by a level 1 character.
What aggravates me (and is the reason several others are too) is because of the FACT that Wizards has decided to go the route of not only introducing ccg aspects to the game but making them CORE rules. They are now part of the official sanctioned rules. That is why one of my suggestions was for them to divide their official sanctioned games into two categories: one that utilize the cards and one that never does.
Scott, the first (they plan to create more, as is evident by the name of the existing set), which means like Magic the cards will eventually become more powerful than previous sets, new rules will be added (and to be fair this is not strictly a MtG flaw that some people hate, as some other companies decide to go that route with their ccgs).
This first set of fortune cards may have been made intentionally with a minor barely noticable effect on the balance of the game.
Again the cards themselves...not a bad idea. making them into a ccg...a bad idea. Make the cards optional and sell them in complete sets. That would have prevented most, if not all, such 'debate' over them. Would you agree with that?
They are "core" but only as "core" as anything is with this game. Even in LFR, the actual usuage of the cards isn't quite the official rules version - where they limit the number of duplicate cards to 1 per 10 cards (which isn't in the offical rules).
Everything else I'll just have to see - they haven't exploded on ebay, so either people aren't buying a lot of cards and trying to resell them or they are holding onto the cards they buy, so take from it what you will.
but I agree, had it been a single product it would have been better.
I did catch your point about sanctioned games requiring fortune cards (which is a totally sweet idea for gameplay btw) can you link to what sanctioned games you are talking about because I wanna play in them.
I already know about the challenge scario (TOTALLY SWEET) events and encounters; is there some other sanctioned game event that requires them?
I still say that the cards are a choice - you can choose not to use them, you can choose not to play in the sanctioned events, you can choose to have weaker characters than groups that use them.
I think not using the cards and not optimizing your own deck are BAD choices, but still are your choices to make.
I'm guessing you don't like CharOp either.
Regarding cooperative play - my characters cooperates harder and better than all the others at the table - whatever role I'm playing I take it to the max, usually with DPR but sometimes as a leader or healer or even tank (often also maxin DPR also). Whatever it takes to bring the party through.
I'm taking care of business and making the dice weep with high numbers to HELP the party succeed - how is this playing wrong?
AND the cards are helping my character accomplish and succeed just a bit more.
Oh oh oh, and I'm supporting WotC at the same time - its a WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN.
-THE Dragon Pimp (dropping the knowledge like it is)
You are using the cards in the way they should be used. Your above post was the first post you posted on here to indicate that you were not using them as typical ccg player. (which all your previous posts made it sound like). I will even give you a kudos for using them as the (hopeful) intent Wizards had behind creating and releasing the cards.
Considering your choice of words and how your style of debate is indicated by your posts, I am going to ask you one question that I am sure I am not the only who has wondered it by reading your posts. Just how young are you?
Read my posts...I do not say that fortune cards per se are a bad idea...it was the decision to introduce them into the game as a ccg aspect to the rpg that was a bad idea.
Have you failed to see that one of the most common complaints about the cards, and the suggestion to 'fix' it was that they released the cards as 'ccg' model and that they would have been SMARTER and WISER to release them as a full set (none the ccg randomness of booster packs which wizards have known for over a decade that is a major turn-off to a multitude of their customers who enjoy rpg and disdain ccgs.
For the record I do not disdain ccgs. The decision to introduce fortune cards as a ccg aspect to the game (and making it core of their officially run challenge scenarios events and encounters) is akin to when new writers get hired on to an existing great television series...and do not do their homework (to prevent making blatant mistakes) in the new episodes they write.
I enjoy character optimization. Making the choice to make fortune cards 'ccg' PUNISHES players who choose not to buy the cards
as well as PUNISHES players who CANNOT AFFORD the cards.
I myself can easily afford to purchase them (I mention this so you stop thinking that my stance is because I myself cannot afford them, DragonPimp.)
It is not a 'win win' situation as you so adamantly (and incorrectly) think it is.
If it was a true 'win win' situation for Wizards they would not have lost customers because of their decision to add a ccg aspect to the rpg. (note: D&D Miniatures is a separate game, with the nice feature of being able to use the figures in rpg games...but are not required to actually play the rpg.)
Your opinion is not flawed, your assumption that your opinion is an actual fact is.
TL;DR version = Agree to disagree.
1) I'm not sure what you mean when you say you "will even give you a kudos for using them as the (hopeful) intent Wizards had behind creating and releasing the cards." Here how it breaks down - I bought cards, I built a slick 10 card deck, I use the deck each turn when I play D&D - its fun.
2) I disagree that the CCG model is bad for card selling. I like it. I want to build my own decks and I don't want to share a communal deck or buy a premade deck.
3) I think that if yall get your way and wizards changes the rules to the cards or discontinues them, then they will be PUNISHING the people who bought them and who actually supported the company with dollars. Hmmm, which will they ever choose to back?????
4) They aren't punishing players anymore than any other sport - does the game of golf PUNISH players who can't afford nice clubs or memberships at nice courses? No, they can still play, but only at certain levels of awesomeness.
-THE Dragon Pimp
I am 187 years young.
-THE Dragon Pimp
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
if you work them into your games, well grats for the people trying something new.
for those that tried them and didnt like them, grats for trying.
for those that dont want something new well 4th edition must be really scary and confusing for you all, and what happened to THAC0.. man i kid.
but here is the reality, games they are a changing. and the first expanction of cards are avaiable. (i got my first pack free from joining the encounters program), and you know what our group did in the encounters game, we pooled all our packs into one pool.
gave the mages and ranged fighters the beatfeets, gave the tanks the stave off death, gave our healers (hang in there) and pooled our cards for best fit of all our classes. then their packs they didnt use were traded for a deck that suited their character. i EVEN SLEAVED them! and at what cost? nothing but spare sleaves and the stock of cards used for the game.
now if wisard sees this as a good cash grab and it is recived well, well more expanctions will follow, BUT if it is poorly recived then it will sink and be discontinued. so fret not oh vocal gamers of the net, the invisable hand of supply and demand will equalize out the corprate side.
at the end of the day, im in the game to tell the story, i have the cards and i share the wealth. i have the money to burn others dont. so I buy the cards and I make the decks. i use my card pool so that everyone can have special cards that is suited for their class, sure i have one beast deck but i dont leave others out.
-THE Dragon Pimp
i do... i utilize them with my character in the encounters game we play on friday, my tanking claric of the raven queen wouldent be compleat with his cards.
its pretty epic last game i was in i took a leathal wound that would have dropped me past zero. slapping down a 'stave off death', then going to the undead ghost while grinning and saying "my queen doesent want me yet, but she wants you brought to justice"
these cards are situational modifiers that was not encluded in the game. we all have been there, looking for weapon damage of a falling pc, looking for extra attack bonus on teabaging a orc. the role playing should be primaraly.
D&D is truefully not a PVP game, we all including the game master are here to tell a story.
our characters are us, being arnold in true lies, being harrason ford in starwars. now if han was killed off in the canteena there there wouldent be an epic story.
we are telling a story, using the rules as general guidelines
For special cards, I think I prefer the classic deck of one-shot bonuses, handed out by the DM to players who take risks for the sake of good role playing. Sure, the classic method isn't tailored to any particular fighting style, but it's free, and it helps cross a major stumbling block to great games.
Outside of D&D Encounters, one option is to use the cards as a DM tool. I like how they can be used to create special benefits for encounters. I use them in similar fashion to the Despair Deck in Shadowfell.
Trading isn't necessary - completely up to you. The idea is really to have a player-side product that players would find to be fun. The product is, many think, experimenting with what players might buy. A typical situation is that a DM owns a lot of books, half the table might own a couple of books, and some players own barely anything at all. This seems to change little as the years of an edition pass, and is typically the same across different RPGs. Those same players that own very little product might pay a hefty sum in monthly fees for MMORPGs. So, how does WotC find something that pleases the player and gains some revenue? That seems to be the goal.
Outside of D&D Encounters, one option is to use the cards as a DM tool. I like how they can be used to create special benefits for encounters. I use them in similar fashion to the Despair Deck in Shadowfell.
Alphastream, I like your idea, that players who purchase very little may be tempted by a $4 pack of combat cards.
I just hope this doesn't lead down a slippery slope to powers being sold in randomized packs. The randomized, raritized, monster packs are bad enough IMO.
The DM is buying campaign books, monster books, rules, tiles, minis, tools, etc. What would the player buy?
Ideally, D&D is growing and thus has the resources to make more and cool stuff for us. So, how can it cater to the player?