So, recently I have noticed that you have attempted to implement an influx of CCG elements into the RPGs you are releasing. I have some feedback of this, and not all of it is negative. Let me start by saying that I hate CCG elements in my RPGs. My post is written from that perspective. If WotC starts to include too much of a CCG element in its RPGs it will lose me as a customer. The rest of my post is going to go over one product that I will not be purchasing (Gamma World), and one product that I believe is smartly implemented, and that doesn't turn me off of D&D despite being a CCG element (fortune cards). I want to give you feedback so that you can, hopefully, better understand what does and does not turn off some of your customers.
One product you are releasing has already included too much of a CCG element in it for me to consider purchasing it. I am specifically talking about Gamma World. I would have LOVED to purchase Gamma World. Then I found out that it will be distributing mutations (and maybe items too?) via randomized booster packs that contain a rarity system. Since mutations are a key part of Gamma World, that means that I cannot ignore that aspect of the game. What is more, if I would want to purchase extra splat material (in the form of mutations) for the game I would be forced to do so by engaging in the experience of purchasing collectible randomized booster packs. To me, this is totally unacceptable; a facet of the rules that I cannot reasonably ignore, and that I can only fully engage in if I am willing to engage in the experience of buying CCG booster packs, will turn me off a product.
You are also, however, releasing fortune cards. I wanted to congratulate you on finding a way to include a CCG element to D&D without turning me off the brand. I also wanted to explain why I percieve a difference. The mechanics of fortune cards are fully optional. The rules behind fortune cards are not found in any of the PHB rule books. The "fortune" mechanic is not like a classes powers, magic items, or some other mechanic that can not be reasonably excluded from the game. It is an extremely modular element that individual groups can choose to engage in or not, as they see fit. This makes it easy for this CCG element to coexist with D&D without turning me off the brand.
WotC, if you are looking for a way to market a CCG element to your RPGs without turning away potential customers who have sensibilities similar to mine, fortune cards are the way to go. Keep rules related to the cards out of your RPG books. Make the cards a modular and optional element that can be plugged into an RPG game at the discretion of the group playing the game.
Which brings me onto the topic of the Ravenloft game you have said you plan on releasing. First of all, thank you SOOO much for making a 4e Ravenloft RPG! Ravenloft rocks. Second of all, please don't include a "mandatory" CCG element ala Gamma World! Yes, I realize you are not trying to market the booster packs of Gamma World as mandatory. Someone is bound to reply to this post by saying, "you can play with just the boxed set; you only need to buy new booster packs if you want to expand your collection." While technically true, that claim is disingenuous. All of us like to expand our RPG collections. If we didn't, this wouldn't be a profitable industry. Buying a game with the knowledge that you won't be able to expand your collection (because you are not willing to engage in a CCG booster pack buying experience) while other players will (because they will be willing to engage in a CCG booster pack buying experience) is exactly what turns me off of RPGs that include CCG elements in them. The only way to avoid that sensation is by making the CCG elements of an RPG you are producing completely modular, and self contained within the purchase of the booster packs themselves. The fortune mechanic does not exist in D&D 4e unless you buy fortune cards. They are modular, and easy to ignore if that sort of thing (or rather that sort of distribution model) is not your cup of tea. If you want to implement some sort of CCG element to your Ravenloft RPG, please do so via this mechanic.
Which brings me to my fear. My fear is that you will implement a CCG element into Ravenloft via fear, madness, and dark gift cards. Don't get me wrong, using cards for fear, madness, and dark gifts is a really smart idea! You have a deck of fear cards, a deck of madness cards, and a deck of dark gift cards. Any time a player commits an evil action you give them a dark gift cards. A player that earns a certain number of dark gift cards becomes an NPC. Any time an event happens in game that causes fear or madness you hand a player a fear or madness card (which inflicts some negative effect). By this means you manage to capture the random quality of fear, madness, and dark gifts from 2e (and 3e) Ravenloft. But if you make splat material available only via randomized booster packs, you make it so that consumers who would like to own a complete set of all the "mandatory" Ravenloft material must engage in a CCG booster pack buying experience. (And I say mandatory, because lets face it, madness, fear, and dark gifts, are not a facet of Ravenloft that can be reasonably ignored). This would be a huge turn off to me. I would gladly buy packs of non-randomized cards. But removing my ability to collect an entire set of Ravenloft's "mandatory" rules without engaging in a randomized purchase model will really upset me.
So anyways, that is my 2 cents, and my consumer feedback. Toodles, have a nice day, and good gaming! I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with.
Dave
But there's a couple of things I suggest you to consider:
- remember that the marketing of Ravenloft is still quite up in the air. We got that it's a setting but it's also its own game, however that works. There's a chance (a solid one if I can) that the setting will feature things you won't be able or forced to use when using it as a 4e tool, and things you won't really need or use when using it as a standalone product.
I'm sort of inclined to think that the "CCG" business will be part of the non-4th edition component of the game. I wouldn't be surprised if the Shadowfell box covered most of the bases in terms of mechanics, traps, monsters and hazards, and the Ravenloft game itself was a more freeform RPG with dynamics for playing all the undead races listed in a way that's not closely related to proper D&D, and cards played a big role in that department ("I'm playing a werewolf and collecting cards for that goal") while 4th edition players could still use all the fluff material and maybe got a splatbook with stats for Darklords and similar things.
Remember Ravenloft is supposed to be something "more" (as in, having external mechanics) than simply a D&D setting. The CCG part may be tied to that part of the package.
- even if the cards are related to the D&D part of the game... how do you see that happening? How many cards can they develop? How many gifts and things they can keep and keep balanced? Why would players want a deck for things the DM may or may not allow or hang out?
I feel like we're putting the cart in front of the horses here. On one thing you're right, RPGs and CCGs don't mix well - and I trust WotC knows better than anyone else.
Boss (who got his order from a higher boss): "Hey, Employee, we need you to fit X, Y and Z in prodyuct T. We need to keep selling T in order to stay in business now that times are really hard. So T has to be repeatable and consistent. We've tried option 1 before, but it doesn't sell as well as product W that uses option 2. We want you to implement option 2 with product T so that it includes X, Y and Z"
Now I used letters to illustrate different products. Notice (I know this sounds stupid) but product T and product W are different. However, that's not stopping the people at the top from seeing that Option 2 sells better (even if it is more suited for a particular product type).
Perfect example. Player Handbook Heroes minis didn't do as well. They felt it was because there was no rarity system and non-blind packaging. Behold the next mini line being released. Rarity is restored. There is now a collectable element. They hope to push more units this way. Granted this was all super linear and very generalized, but it goes down something like that.
- remember that the marketing of Ravenloft is still quite up in the air. We got that it's a setting but it's also its own game, however that works. There's a chance (a solid one if I can) that the setting will feature things you won't be able or forced to use when using it as a 4e tool, and things you won't really need or use when using it as a standalone product.
I know its up in the air. That is why I am making this post. I am hoping to have (what I consider to be) a positive effect.
I'm sort of inclined to think that the "CCG" business will be part of the non-4th edition component of the game. I wouldn't be surprised if the Shadowfell box covered most of the bases in terms of mechanics, traps, monsters and hazards, and the Ravenloft game itself was a more freeform RPG with dynamics for playing all the undead races listed in a way that's not closely related to proper D&D, and cards played a big role in that department ("I'm playing a werewolf and collecting cards for that goal") while 4th edition players could still use all the fluff material and maybe got a splatbook with stats for Darklords and similar things.
Remember Ravenloft is supposed to be something "more" (as in, having external mechanics) than simply a D&D setting. The CCG part may be tied to that part of the package.
I expect the promised ghost, werewolf, and vampire, to work with the regular 4e rules. If they don't I will be fairly upset. I don't need to buy Ravenloft just for fluff. I have my old Ravenloft books. I expect it to have both updated fluff and 4e mechanics akin to any other campaign setting. That includes some combination of new races, classes, class builds, feats, and the like. I expect that material to be compatible with the rest of 4e. I expect that material to not be marketed in a CCG format. Marketing the new classes/races in CCG format would turn me off enough for me not to purchase the product. (If the madness, fear, and dark gift facets are marketed in a CCG format I will be very upset, and I wont buy any booster, but I will probably, not for sure, still buy the product. So, I think your suggestion sounds even WORSE than my actual fears.)
- even if the cards are related to the D&D part of the game... how do you see that happening? How many cards can they develop? How many gifts and things they can keep and keep balanced? Why would players want a deck for things the DM may or may not allow or hang out?
I feel like we're putting the cart in front of the horses here. On one thing you're right, RPGs and CCGs don't mix well - and I trust WotC knows better than anyone else.
What I fear I might see happening is something similar to Gamma World. You will get a small starting deck of madness, fear, and dark gift cards with the Ravenloft boxed set. They will then create more such cards. But if you want to get the new cards you will have to buy randomized booster sets (that will often sell you the same cards over and over again instead of the new material you actually want). And that will REALLY upset me. I don't want to be sold an integral part of the setting via a CCG distribution model.
Unfortunately, this is how things go like in the gaming industry-
Boss (who got his order from a higher boss): "Hey, Employee, we need you to fit X, Y and Z in prodyuct T. We need to keep selling T in order to stay in business now that times are really hard. So T has to be repeatable and consistent. We've tried option 1 before, but it doesn't sell as well as product W that uses option 2. We want you to implement option 2 with product T so that it includes X, Y and Z"
Now I used letters to illustrate different products. Notice (I know this sounds stupid) but product T and product W are different. However, that's not stopping the people at the top from seeing that Option 2 sells better (even if it is more suited for a particular product type).
Perfect example. Player Handbook Heroes minis didn't do as well. They felt it was because there was no rarity system and non-blind packaging. Behold the next mini line being released. Rarity is restored. There is now a collectible element. They hope to push more units this way. Granted this was all super linear and very generalized, but it goes down something like that.
Yea, I know. But at the same time, when they see enough potential customers get upset about something they listen. They are already going to try and fit X, Y, and Z into product T (Gamma World). If that doesn't do well (or as well as they would hope) they will reconsider X, Y, and Z. We see this happening right now with the essentials line of books. That line is explicitly trying to fix a large number of complaints people have had about the 4e line of books. So here I am giving my customer feedback. Their marketing tactic with Gamma World has turned me off enough that I won't be purchasing that product. I don't have any interest in the Fortune Cards, but their marketing tactic integrates itself in a way that doesn't turn me off the rest of the D&D line. I would really appreciate it, if they do plan to add some sort of CCG element to Ravenloft, that they add it in a manner that will not turn me off the product. That is all...
Similarly, the idea of a 'player deck' is lame. If I'm running a game, I'm going to control what's available to the players. I'm not going to let some nutjob with a deck of all Gamma Eye and Black Ray Pistol cards waltz in and vape everything.
When I sit down at a gaming table as a player, I expect to have equal chances of rolling up a good character as everyone else. If one player who has choked up alot of money for cards will end up getting a better character because of that, this just strikes me as unfair. Back in the 2e days, each member of our gaming group bought different supplements so that together as a group we would have as many sourcebooks as possible, but we never considered only allowing the guy who owned the Fighter's Handbook to pick a Fighter's Kit for instance. That seems to be sort of the idea with this concept.
What our group probably would have ended up doing would be to pile up all our cards so that everyone could draw a card from anyone's deck, but that would defeat the purpose of making them collectable wouldn't it? Or would it be so that groups who could only afford a few booster packs won't be able to have a Holy Avenger in their game, because they don't know what it does? It all sounds very confusing to me. Dave Arneson was the first to introduce a sort of Fate Cards in his D&D game in 1974, but that was a very different concept.
-Havard
I like the boosters system. I like that I can break some boosters at the beginning of the session an have some new and unxpected game effects.
Right now WotC is doing wonbderful job, caterting to both parties. You want a game without random cards? Buy boxed set and throw away the booster. I want my boosters - I will buy boxed set AND boosters.
But you somehow think that your opinion is superior to mine and instead of happily buying things that suit you and let me buy things that suit me, you start all that "Bad WotC - stop making CCG for RPG?"
Who are you to spoil my fun? I want those boosters. I like that idea. Mind your boxed sets and books and allow me to break my boosters and hunt for rares and so on.
And just for the record - I'm not a teenage player who grew on MtG. I'm DMing since 2nd edition and still see no probems with CCG elements injected in my games.
What about me and other peeps like me guys?
I like the boosters system. I like that I can break some boosters at the beginning of the session an have some new and unxpected game effects.
Right now WotC is doing wonbderful job, caterting to both parties. You want a game without random cards? Buy boxed set and throw away the booster. I want my boosters - I will buy boxed set AND boosters.
But you somehow think that your opinion is superior to mine and instead of happily buying things that suit you and let me buy things that suit me, you start all that "Bad WotC - stop making CCG for RPG?"
Who are you to spoil my fun? I want those boosters. I like that idea. Mind your boxed sets and books and allow me to break my boosters and hunt for rares and so on.
And just for the record - I'm not a teenage player who grew on MtG. I'm DMing since 2nd edition and still see no probems with CCG elements injected in my games.
Baseball cards sell complete sets without preventing a collector's market. I don't see why a similar system wouldn't work with CCG elements for RPGs. That would allow you to have your fun and allows others to get a complete set if they want. The problem with buying just the boxed set is that mutations are a very important feature of gamma world. I want to be able to collect them all but don't want to have to hunt down rares. Like Cyber-Dave said I can easily ignore the Fortune cards in D&D but GW needs the mutations.
The problem with buying just the boxed set is that mutations are a very important feature of gamma world. I want to be able to collect them all but don't want to have to hunt down rares. Like Cyber-Dave said I can easily ignore the Fortune cards in D&D but GW needs the mutations.
You'll have your 40 mutations (and 40 techs) in the 1st boxed set. And more in the aditional sets. And I'm quite sure that as with MtG in a week after boosters are released a file with complete text all of the cards (so called spoiler) will appear somewhere on the Internet. So you'll have your fun. Let me have mine.
I don't want to buy a complete set. I want to buy a couple of boosters, break them out with my players and go "Wow! Look at this! OMG I hope I gonna get this in today game." The booster make all the fun in this case.
You'll have your 40 mutations (and 40 techs) in the 1st boxed set. And more in the aditional sets. And I'm quite sure that as with MtG in a week after boosters are released a file with complete text all of the cards (so called spoiler) will appear somewhere on the Internet. So you'll have your fun. Let me have mine.
I don't want to buy a complete set. I want to buy a couple of boosters, break them out with my players and go "Wow! Look at this! OMG I hope I gonna get this in today game." The booster make all the fun in this case.
How is having a complete set different than downloading the complete text online? You don't have to buy the complete set just like I don't have to buy the boosters. We both have fun and WotC gets paid to produce more products. If I just download the text online WotC doesn't make as much money and may decide not to continue the product line.
What about me and other peeps like me guys?
I like the boosters system. I like that I can break some boosters at the beginning of the session an have some new and unxpected game effects.
Right now WotC is doing wonbderful job, caterting to both parties. You want a game without random cards? Buy boxed set and throw away the booster. I want my boosters - I will buy boxed set AND boosters.
But you somehow think that your opinion is superior to mine and instead of happily buying things that suit you and let me buy things that suit me, you start all that "Bad WotC - stop making CCG for RPG?"
Who are you to spoil my fun? I want those boosters. I like that idea. Mind your boxed sets and books and allow me to break my boosters and hunt for rares and so on.
And just for the record - I'm not a teenage player who grew on MtG. I'm DMing since 2nd edition and still see no probems with CCG elements injected in my games.
No, WotC is not doing a wonderful job catering to both parties. WotC's "wonderful job" on Gamma World is going to cause me to boycott that product line (even though I would have loved to purchase Gamma World). If I get really unlucky, it may cause me to boycott Ravenloft as well. That is not a wonderful job catering to both parties.
I wrote down exactly the sensation that turns me off purchasing an RPG with a CCG component to it:
Yes, I realize you are not trying to market the booster packs of Gamma World as mandatory. Someone is bound to reply to this post by saying, "you can play with just the boxed set; you only need to buy new booster packs if you want to expand your collection." While technically true, that claim is disingenuous. All of us like to expand our RPG collections. If we didn't, this wouldn't be a profitable industry. Buying a game with the knowledge that you won't be able to expand your collection (because you are not willing to engage in a CCG booster pack buying experience) while other players will (because they will be willing to engage in a CCG booster pack buying experience) is exactly what turns me off of RPGs that include CCG elements in them. The only way to avoid that sensation is by making the CCG elements of an RPG you are producing completely modular, and self contained within the purchase of the booster packs themselves.
You can not buy Gamma World and "throw away the boosters." The mutation mechanic is too integral to that game.
WotC IS doing a wonderful job with the fortune cards. They are modular. I don't have to be inundated to their existence if I don't want to. In order to avoid being inundated by their existence I don't have to avoid purchasing D&D products. Or at least, so it seems right now.
So yes, I would like to be able to happily buy the things that suit me, and leave you to buy the things that suit you. In order to be able to do that I need WotC not to release any CCG element attached to core rulebooks. Any CCG element they release must be modular and self contained within that CCG element.
Alternatively, as I noted in another thread, they can release books full of text that contain ALL of the information in them (such as a power book full of mutations, say, or some such), and then release randomized booster packs that are to be used as a play aid and not as the sole method of distributing the game's rules. That too would not turn me off. I can then collect a complete set of the games rules, via book form, and all of us can choose to buy or not buy play aids as we see fit (as we do with miniatures).
I know that it was announced that Gamma World would have random boosters introduced with it, but it's going to be released in 2 months, and I haven't seen any evidence that the random boosters will be released. If someone's got a link, cough it up.
Someone should be able to provide you with a link. I don't have the links saved, but WotC employees have released a lot of information about Gamma World. Some of it was in text form. Some of it was in podcast form. Almost all of it came from this site. Included in that information was the explicit statement that the mutation cards would have a rarity system, and that the booster packs would be randomized. There was also a suggestion, in one of the pod-casts, that players could create their own decks. I am sorry I can not provide you with the links myself.
The problem with buying just the boxed set is that mutations are a very important feature of gamma world. I want to be able to collect them all but don't want to have to hunt down rares. Like Cyber-Dave said I can easily ignore the Fortune cards in D&D but GW needs the mutations.
You'll have your 40 mutations (and 40 techs) in the 1st boxed set. And more in the aditional sets. And I'm quite sure that as with MtG in a week after boosters are released a file with complete text all of the cards (so called spoiler) will appear somewhere on the Internet. So you'll have your fun. Let me have mine.
I don't want to buy a complete set. I want to buy a couple of boosters, break them out with my players and go "Wow! Look at this! OMG I hope I gonna get this in today game." The booster make all the fun in this case.
As I have said, I can not throw out the mutation decks for Gamma World. Their rules are too integrated into the game. I can not ignore the CCG aspect of the game, because it is released with the core rulebook. And I will not be able to purchase a text book (or non-randomized deck) from WotC in order to contain a complete set of the game's rules. This means I won't buy that product. I am just here letting WotC know why I won't buy that product. WotC can use my customer feedback as they will. They are not beholden to listen to me. The only way they will listen to me is if they decide that their marketing strategy with Gamma World has cost them money on that venture, because it has ostracized too many potential buyers. So who are you to tell us not to give WotC this information? If WotC is ostracizing customers, and causing certain products not to sell to certain customers due to this CCG element, who are you to try and silence those customers? Nobody here is stopping you from buying what you like. Nobody here is telling you what you can and can not like. Moreover, nobody here is even telling WotC to "never create a CCG element for any of your RPGs." We are just asking that the CCG element be released either as a) stand alone modular elements that can easily be ignored by those of us who hate CCG elements or b) as play aids whose content can also be bought in some non-randomized format.
And yes, I probably could find a scanned version of all the cards over the internet. But if that PdF is not released by WotC it will be stolen material. I make a point of not stealing books. I buy only legally released PdFs and text based products. So, stealing in order to gain a complete set of the game's rules is not an option.
How is having a complete set different than downloading the complete text online? You don't have to buy the complete set just like I don't have to buy the boosters. We both have fun and WotC gets paid to produce more products.
You mean if they make complete set AND boosters? Yep the would suit me all right, but I doubt it's gonna happen. There are two realistic ways it gonna be - they make boosters or they scrap that idea. So all your boycotting means trying to scrap the product I want to have.
If I just download the text online WotC doesn't make as much money and may decide not to continue the product line.
This won't happen either. All MtG sets are online to download. Magic Set Editor allows you to make and print all the cards you need. But AFAIK MtG continues and it's not gonna be closed in nearest future.
As I have said, I can not throw out the mutation decks for Gamma World. Their rules are too integrated into the game.
The mutation decks are in the box. 40 non-random cards with mutation. So you don't have to throw them out.
And yes, I probably could find a scanned version of all the cards over the internet. But if that PdF is not released by WotC it will be stolen material. I make a point of not stealing books. I buy only legally released PdFs and text based products. So, stealing in order to gain a complete set of the game's rules is not an option.
I never said anything about stealing. Spoilers are completely legal. These are not pdfs. Usually a TXT or HTML page with all the basic info printed on the cards. That allows ppl who collect cards or build decks to know what to look for and in which set. It even makes the sales better. When I had my own shop/gaming club, we had all the MtG spoiler neatly printed out for our customers to use. But for you it's all the rules you need. Just as you've wanted.
How is having a complete set different than downloading the complete text online? You don't have to buy the complete set just like I don't have to buy the boosters. We both have fun and WotC gets paid to produce more products.
You mean if they make complete set AND boosters? Yep the would suit me all right, but I doubt it's gonna happen. There are two realistic ways it gonna be - they make boosters or they scrap that idea. So all your boycotting means trying to scrap the product I want to have.
If I just download the text online WotC doesn't make as much money and may decide not to continue the product line.
This won't happen either. All MtG sets are online to download. Magic Set Editor allows you to make and print all the cards you need. But AFAIK MtG continues and it's gonna be closed in nearest future.
We have explicitly stated that we are ok with a combination of a non-randomized distribution and a randomized play aid. We have explicitly stated that we are ok with CCG elements that are released as separate, and modular, products that can optionally be added to the game. If these options are ok with you, great! If not, sorry. If our boycott results in WotC deciding that the idea should just be scrapped, sorry. But that doesn't mean we are trying to boycott just to try and cause WotC to scrap a product you want to have. What we are trying to do is cause WotC to either a) release the information in a non-randomized form as well as a randomized form or b) release the randomized information in a self contained, modular, and optional format. One way or another, neither the customer feedback, nor the boycott, will end. Our opinion matters too. By our opinion, Gamma World is wholly unacceptable. Fortune cards are wholly acceptable. And I REALLY hope Ravenloft will not follow a similar model.
As I have said, I can not throw out the mutation decks for Gamma World. Their rules are too integrated into the game.
The mutation decks are in the box. 40non-random cards with mutation. So you don't have to throw them out.
And, as I have noted in two posts already, the "simply use what comes in the box" option is not acceptable. The reasons why are listed above. That option is causing me to boycott gamma world. That option will cause me to boycott any other product WotC releases with that option. Only two options are acceptable: 1) fully modular, self contained, and optional booster splat material; 2) randomized play aids that can also be purchased in non-randomized format.
And yes, I probably could find a scanned version of all the cards over the internet. But if that PdF is not released by WotC it will be stolen material. I make a point of not stealing books. I buy only legally released PdFs and text based products. So, stealing in order to gain a complete set of the game's rules is not an option.
I never said anything about stealing. Spoilers are completely legal. These are not pdfs. Usually a TXT or HTML page with all the basic info printed on the cards. That allows ppl who collect cards or build decks to know what to look for and in which set. It even makes the sales better. When I had my own shop/gaming club, we had all the MtG spoiler neatly printed out for our customers to use. But for you it's all the rules you need. Just as you've wanted.
If it is released in HD quality, so that I can print them out for myself and make my own cards, fine. If not, no good. I don't mind paying for the information. They don't need to give it to me for free. But I expect to either be able to buy (in either print or digital form) a HD quality release of all of the rules in non-randomized format, or to have these CCG elements be modular, self contained, and optional. Anything short of one of these two options will (very likely) cause me to boycott a product line.
I know that it was announced that Gamma World would have random boosters introduced with it, but it's going to be released in 2 months, and I haven't seen any evidence that the random boosters will be released. If someone's got a link, cough it up.
Someone should be able to provide you with a link. I don't have the links saved, but WotC employees have released a lot of information about Gamma World. Some of it was in text form. Some of it was in podcast form. Almost all of it came from this site. Included in that information was the explicit statement that the mutation cards would have a rarity system, and that the booster packs would be randomized. There was also a suggestion, in one of the pod-casts, that players could create their own decks. I am sorry I can not provide you with the links myself.
Yeaaaah, when I asked about it, I already knew the answer. You seem a reasonable enough guy that prompting you to stop and think about the existence of the very thing you're unhappy with would lead to a Zen moment.
Besides vague pronouncements a long time ago, there is no proof that Gamma World is still planning to implement random boosters. You're getting angry over something that has probably will never exist.
Besides vague pronouncements a long time ago, there is no proof that Gamma World is still planning to implement random boosters. You're getting angry over something that has probably will never exist.
Wizards has a pdf about the product. Troll and Toad thinks it will exist. Do you need more links?
on cards in RPGs:I am not dead-set against cards being optionally added to RPGs; I think they have many possibilities that could be fun and/or helpful. In this role, cards can be great. I look forward to seeing what the fortune cards are like and how they function in a game.
Other potentially useful cards (especially for DMs that have little time to prepare adventures) could include:
1) Random Encounter Cards. Card text: X number of Role Y creatures of Level +/- Z, etc., etc. (with each card being a full encounter's worth of creatures).
2) Random Dungeon Cards. Each card shows a picture of a dungeon chamber or coridoor, and this can be an alternate method of creating random dungeons, as mentioned in the back of the DMG.
3) Random Quest Cards. Simple quests, like: bring back X number of item Y; escort NPC X through dangerous place Y; etc. Admittedly, these quests are like those found in MMO's; but they can be a good place to start from for a DM that hasn't had time to prepare anything more detailed.
4) Condition Cards. Simply, cards that (in addition to a small illustration) contain the mechanical effects of a condition. You hand these cards to players whose characters are affected by these conditions, as an easy reference during combat, and get handed back to the DM when they make the save (or otherwise shrug off the condition). Given that some conditions have been eratta'd, this could be a significant convenience if the conditions on the cards are consistent with the current eratta.
Where the inclusion of cards becomes an issue for me is when they do any of the following:
1) A rarity system is applied to the cards (cards are not produced in equal numbers within the same set).
2) The cards are only distributed through randomized boosters. My reasoning is this: You can randomize purchased cards by shuffling the pile (if you like randomness); but you cannot de-randomize boosters before purchase (if you want to have a full set of the cards).
3) The cards include game material that belongs in the books (like class features/powers, feats, races, magic items, etc) and is the only source of that material.
4) The cards replace a basic component of them existing game (like drawing cards to make saves, skill checks, or attacks instead of rolling dice).
I know that it was announced that Gamma World would have random boosters introduced with it, but it's going to be released in 2 months, and I haven't seen any evidence that the random boosters will be released. If someone's got a link, cough it up.
Someone should be able to provide you with a link. I don't have the links saved, but WotC employees have released a lot of information about Gamma World. Some of it was in text form. Some of it was in podcast form. Almost all of it came from this site. Included in that information was the explicit statement that the mutation cards would have a rarity system, and that the booster packs would be randomized. There was also a suggestion, in one of the pod-casts, that players could create their own decks. I am sorry I can not provide you with the links myself.
Besides vague pronouncements a long time ago, there is no proof that Gamma World is still planning to implement random boosters. You're getting angry over something that has probably will never exist.
There were no vague pronouncements. WotC developers stated "Gamma World booster packs will have a rarity system." This information was linked off an official WotC website. That is not vague. And now Dulsi has provided you with three advertisements for randomized booster packs of mutation (read: character power) cards. I am not angry. I am being reasonable. I am simply telling WotC about my purchasing habits, and what products turn me off or on. I am not even passing empirical judgments on these products, simply informing WotC how I feel about them, and how I plan to treat them as a result. Giving feedback to a company is not unreasonable, nor does it indicate that someone is angry. Ending your feedback post by wishing WotC well, and telling them that you are interested to see what they come up with in the future, is not unreasonable, nor does it indicate that someone is angry. My post is quite polite, level headed, calm, and dare I say pleasant. Like I said, I wish WotC well.
I understand the joy some people take in CCGs. I collected Star Wars cards when I was 12, I get it. I don't have the time, inclination, enthusiasm or energy to ever do that sort of thing again, I just vaguely remember what it was like.
But, seriously, Gamma World does not need to be used as a marketing ploy to push something else, /again/. It's been used to promote d20 modern, Alternity, and the MSH system (the one with the annoying FEAT chart, if anyone remembers that). (Plus, Metamorphosis Alpha was used with 'Amazing Engine'). Now it's going to be used to try to push CCGs on roleplayers? Gamma World has gotten to just be about Gamma World in only 3 out of 7 editions, now. That's just wrong.
Oh, and guess what just got confirmed today: "Alpha Mutations are encounter powers which are drawn from a deck created by the Player, and usually revolve around one or both of the Characters particular themes. " Also, it has been confirmed that Alpha Mutation and Omega Tech decks are randomized. What is more, they do have a rarity system. Specifically, "It was also noted that the booster packs were numbered so that if a Player were to buy one of each, he would accumulate one of each of the “common” cards available for the game. Of course, each booster contains a random rare, and two random uncommon cards, so collectors wanting a complete set might have to do some trading or buy a lot of boosters to finish their collections." All this information is from this year's (2010) seminar on Gamma World at GenCon. So what were you saying again Alter_Boy?
That it would be nice to have people share information on the Internet for reasons other than to make me look dumb. :/
That it would be nice to have people share information on the Internet for reasons other than to make me look dumb. :/
It's easy to look dumb when you make authoritative statements on subjects you aren't fully educated about. You didn't do the research. It happens. A lot of us don't have the time to research everything we say. The easy answer to that however is speaking (or posting) with discretion. At the very least, we can now speak from a more informed position as to what the cards will be like in GW.
That it would be nice to have people share information on the Internet for reasons other than to make me look dumb. :/
Posting just to make someone look dumb. Huh. You mean like when you asked me a question, I took you at your word and told you (truthfully) that I had not saved the links where the information could be found, but that offical sources had leaked all the information I gave from this website, and you replied by saying something like...
Yeaaaah, when I asked about it, I already knew the answer. You seem a reasonable enough guy that prompting you to stop and think about the existence of the very thing you're unhappy with would lead to a Zen moment.
...that?
I don't know. Maybe I really misread your tone. But to me, that reads like someone trying to sarcastically claim that I am not reasonable at all, and that I am claiming falsehoods and throwing a fit over remote possibilities. But I did do my research. I read many statements from developers. I formed my predictions about Gamma World on those statements. And with the new information released from GenCon this year, it would seem that all my predictions were correct. Otherwise, I simply told WotC how I feel about this move. I didn't scream. I didn't rant. I didn't insult. I just told them how I feel, and how their decisions are affecting my purchasing habits. I also told them that I worry about Ravenloft, because some of the information they have given me leads me to believe that it is a possibility that Ravenloft will also contain such a CCG mechanic. I haven't stated that it will. I haven't stated that they said it will. I stated that I worry, based on some of their rather vague statements, that it might. And after all that, I wished WotC (and all its employees) well, no matter what.
So I am sorry if "I made you look dumb." But, keeping everything in context, when you made empirical claims without data (all because you didn't want to believe me), and were fairly rude to me in the process (unless I really misread your tone), you should probably have expected it.
Anyways, I am sorry, and maybe we can now start simply being nice to each other.
The problem with buying just the boxed set is that mutations are a very important feature of gamma world. I want to be able to collect them all but don't want to have to hunt down rares. Like Cyber-Dave said I can easily ignore the Fortune cards in D&D but GW needs the mutations.
You'll have your 40 mutations (and 40 techs) in the 1st boxed set. And more in the aditional sets. And I'm quite sure that as with MtG in a week after boosters are released a file with complete text all of the cards (so called spoiler) will appear somewhere on the Internet. So you'll have your fun. Let me have mine.
I don't want to buy a complete set. I want to buy a couple of boosters, break them out with my players and go "Wow! Look at this! OMG I hope I gonna get this in today game." The booster make all the fun in this case.
As I have said, I can not throw out the mutation decks for Gamma World. Their rules are too integrated into the game. I can not ignore the CCG aspect of the game, because it is released with the core rulebook. And I will not be able to purchase a text book (or non-randomized deck) from WotC in order to contain a complete set of the game's rules. This means I won't buy that product. I am just here letting WotC know why I won't buy that product. WotC can use my customer feedback as they will. They are not beholden to listen to me. The only way they will listen to me is if they decide that their marketing strategy with Gamma World has cost them money on that venture, because it has ostracized too many potential buyers. So who are you to tell us not to give WotC this information? If WotC is ostracizing customers, and causing certain products not to sell to certain customers due to this CCG element, who are you to try and silence those customers? Nobody here is stopping you from buying what you like. Nobody here is telling you what you can and can not like. Moreover, nobody here is even telling WotC to "never create a CCG element for any of your RPGs." We are just asking that the CCG element be released either as a) stand alone modular elements that can easily be ignored by those of us who hate CCG elements or b) as play aids whose content can also be bought in some non-randomized format.
And yes, I probably could find a scanned version of all the cards over the internet. But if that PdF is not released by WotC it will be stolen material. I make a point of not stealing books. I buy only legally released PdFs and text based products. So, stealing in order to gain a complete set of the game's rules is not an option.
I like you have a very rational hatred of CCG's, however the booster idea doesn't drive me insane. Why? I can always download a list of mutations from the internet and then set up a table that I can roll on to randomly decide the mutations, all without buying a single booster.
Would I rather there be no CCG aspect at all? Obviously. But can I make do with there being one? Yes, yes I can.
P.S. There is no reason to assume that the list of mutations will be legally available on the internet.
as for Gama and ravenloft... I love intergrated cards with boosters as long as you do not need to collect the all. (again yes I know you feel you will need to if it comes to that) I would love to once a week at my FLGS when i play my sat night game to pick up a 5$ pack of cards to add to my collection... and the week new ones come out I will most likely blow for 3-5 packs...
In fact My saterday night DM already ha all 3 GW boxes on pre order, and is planing on buying a whole box of each booster pack...
P.S. There is no reason to assume that the list of mutations will be legally available on the internet.
what if there was? Would the compramise of "6 weeks after relase of the cards we will put up a free pdf of them for you" be anough to change your mind?
what if there was? Would the compramise of "6 weeks after relase of the cards we will put up a free pdf of them for you" be anough to change your mind?
The whole "6 weeks after release" bit is a major turn off. I certainly won't buy Gamma World until the cards are made available without a random distribution model. But I suppose, if all of the cards were made available in PDF format, the format was high quality enough that I could print out the cards for myself, and this format was regularly kept up to date with new releases, then yes. I still wouldn't buy a single booster pack. But when running games I could make decks of cards myself (instead of buying boosters to create decks), so I guess I would be ok with that.
Although, another issue I would need to consider is whether you need purchased cards at RPGA play events. Because, if so, that is another turn off. That would mean that I can only play Gamma World at home games (that allow self printed cards). So, Gamma World would be playable when I run it. But, the number of games I would be willing/could play at would be seriously diminished, which still makes the product a good deal less appealing.
The only cards that WotC is putting out that I can see someone complaining about are the randomized boosters from Gamma World. But despite having the D&D logo and being made somewhat compatible with 4E rules, Gamma World is not D&D. The Fortune Cards are optional and the Despair Deck and Deck of Many Things are complete decks with no boosters that only apply to the products they come with. Even the GW boosters are optional since the game comes with its own set deck of mutation and tech cards. I'm going to be playing it with just those decks and not worry about the boosters. They're a bit pricey for me.
what if there was? Would the compramise of "6 weeks after relase of the cards we will put up a free pdf of them for you" be anough to change your mind?
The whole "6 weeks after release" bit is a major turn off. I certainly won't buy Gamma World until the cards are made available without a random distribution model. But I suppose, if all of the cards were made available in PDF format, the format was high quality enough that I could print out the cards for myself, and this format was regularly kept up to date with new releases, then yes. I still wouldn't buy a single booster pack. But when running games I could make decks of cards myself (instead of buying boosters to create decks), so I guess I would be ok with that.
As I do not play at RPGA events, I would be completely ok with it if WotC met all these conditions Dave cited. Like Dave however, I also would never buy a single booster pack.
Gamma World is D&Dbased, but it's not D&D and frankly, there doesn't seem to be anything indicating mixing D&D with CCGs.
It all started with an assumption after a tweet about Ravenloft. It's silly.
Me, I have noticed that WotC still has yet to mention adding a CCG element to D&D.
Gamma World is D&Dbased, but it's not D&D and frankly, there doesn't seem to be anything indicating mixing D&D with CCGs.
It all started with an assumption after a tweet about Ravenloft. It's silly.
It's not so much assumption as it is speculation. Gamma World and Fortune Cards reveal that WotC is actively trying to get boosters into common use by PnP gamers (in one case by working it into the meat of the game, and in another by making it an optional layer of gaming material). The revelation that Ravenloft will have a physical element to it could very easily mean cards, though I am personally hoping for something less asinine.
Me, I have noticed that WotC still has yet to mention adding a CCG element to D&D.
Gamma World is D&Dbased, but it's not D&D and frankly, there doesn't seem to be anything indicating mixing D&D with CCGs.
It all started with an assumption after a tweet about Ravenloft. It's silly.
Actually, it has more to do with the fact that WotC has a history of using side games to test out new ideas for its main brands. 2e's Players Options tested out ideas for 3e (and someone told me that there was a sci-fi game WotC released that did the same, but I am not sure about the details of that claim). d20 Modern tested out ideas for 3.5e and Saga. Saga in turn tested out ideas for 4e. It should not come as a surprise when some of the elements of Gamma World later bleed into WotC's other brand name games. Indeed, we can already see randomized booster cards (in the form of fortune cards) being tested for D&D itself (though this particular product doesn't bother me much). There is a clear pattern of behavior here...
You completly miss the point. Even in your own list of stuff, every one of those decks are single purchase items. CCG's are not something I want to play.
CCG's have had their day. D&D is not a card game and if WotC thinks they can make it so, a good many people will not be buying their product. Hell for the most part I havent bought anything this year, because they cannot ever seem to edit anything properly.
WotC; if you continue to add CCG elements to my game system I'll go back to another edition. One you had nothing to do with.
And now you're missing the point. How are they making D&D into a card game? The only cards they're putting out for D&D that aren't single purchase items are the Fortune Cards, which are completely optional. You are not being forced to buy a booster pack of cards to play D&D. It sounds like you have something personal against CCGs and now see any type of cards as the same thing as Magic and Pokemon.
Card games should stay where they are. The poker table where everyone has the same chance of buying the same card every time they buy a deck.
Dice should stay in boardgames where they belong. Charts should stay in business meetings where they belong. Elves and dwarves should stay in Norse mythology where they belong. Thieves should stay in Lord of the Rings where they belong. Words should stay in novels where they belong.
Fortune Cards are optional. You are not required to use them. If you say they shouldn't exist, even though some people want them and you aren't required to use them, you are just being selfish. They are also not a card game. They work as a replacement for random charts. Using cards saves time and table space. It isn't anything like combining Magic with D&D.
Wasn't the argument against me "Well, if some people want it, then put it in and let the DM take it out"? Yeah, it was. Well, I like the idea of these non-collectible cards (and that's directly from the mouths of the people who did the GenCon upcoming products seminar) being introduced into the products. I'm not a M:tG player. I'm generally not a collectible game player. These boosters aren't meant to be collectible. If you choose to be a completist, that's your business, but it's no different than someone who purchases every single D&D hardcover book even if they're not going to use them all simply to have a complete set. That doesn't make the books a collectible set.
If you don't want to buy boosters, then don't. You can use just the ones that come in the boxes. Sure, it'll be a short-handed set, but that's the consequence of not adding boosters, which you accept when you choose to not buy boosters. The games aren't unplayable without boosters though.
Starting threads to whine about how you won't buy the products if they're not exactly what you want is hypocritical at best. I'm not threatening to boycott Ravenloft just because I don't want guns in D&D.
I'll buy Gamma World (I always have before, it's one of my favorite games). I won't buy boosters packs, it just not a model that apeals to me. I don't buy the D&D minis that are packaged that way, I'm not going to start buying cards that are. But, I would like a large set of cheap plastic minis for a low price or a complete set of cards for GW, if WotC ever feels like they might like more of my money.
I find it utterly laughable that the same guy who spent a week telling me I am unreasonable because I don't think guns belong in D&D started a thread to stomp his feet and yell that he's now not even going to buy the product that he wants guns included in!
You're not unreasonable because you don't think guns belong in D&D. You're unreasonable for not wanting WotC to ever publish firarms rules, even if they were optional ones, because you are apparently incapable of saying no to your players. Optional boosters (so long as their use is legitimately optional) is nothing I have a problem with. I don't want to speak for Dave, but his lack of a problem with Fortune Cards seems indicative that he doesn't have a problem with legitimately optional cards either.
I find it utterly laughable that the same guy who spent a week telling me I am unreasonable because I don't think guns belong in D&D started a thread to stomp his feet and yell that he's now not even going to buy the product that he wants guns included in!
You're not unreasonable because you don't think guns belong in D&D. You're unreasonable for not wanting WotC to ever publish firarms rules, even if they were optional ones, because you are apparently incapable of saying no to your players. Optional boosters (so long as their use is legitimately optional) is nothing I have a problem with. I don't want to speak for Dave, but his lack of a problem with Fortune Cards seems indicative that he doesn't have a problem with legitimately optional cards either.
I didn't single you out.
Regardless, as I specifically said, none of the cards, including the Gamma World boosters, are collectible. Buying boosters is optional and therefore whining about them is hypocritical when I was jumped on for a week for not wanting optional guns in D&D.
There are base cards in the Gamma World box. If you don't want to buy a single booster you don't have to.
If he doesn't have a problem with the cards in the Ravenloft set, then why is he threatening to boycott the entire product?
And I'm not incapable of saying "No" to my players. I don't want to say "No" to them. There's a very large difference, but I already explained that to you in the other thread.
Regardless, as I specifically said, none of the cards, including the Gamma World boosters, are collectible.
What's the line they didn't cross that kept them from being 'collectible?' I mean, they're at three levels of rarity in randomized booster packs, so you get that little thrill when you find the 'rare' card that wasn't in the last 33 booster packs you bought and completes you collection.
Regardless, as I specifically said, none of the cards, including the Gamma World boosters, are collectible. Buying boosters is optional and therefore whining about them is hypocritical when I was jumped on for a week for not wanting optional guns in D&D.
There are base cards in the Gamma World box. If you don't want to buy a single booster you don't have to.
There's "optional" and then there's optional, and there is a rather significant difference between the two. Here's a RL example: Getting an education is "optional"; but getting married is legitimately optional.
If he doesn't have a problem with the cards in the Ravenloft set, then why is he threatening to boycott the entire product?
I never said he didn't have a problem with the cards in Ravenloft. We don't know yet if cards in Ravenloft will be "optional" or optional. Based on what I've read of his arguments, I believe Dave wouldn't have a problem with cards (like the Fortune Cards) that are legitimately optional. Of course, I already said I don't want to speak for him so asking him directly is your best option.
We don't even know if there will be cards in Ravenloft.
Yes, there are. The cards specifically in Ravonloft RPG have to do with the horror mechanic of the game. They are specific to the setting. They mentioned this durring the seminar.
Regardless, as I specifically said, none of the cards, including the Gamma World boosters, are collectible. Buying boosters is optional and therefore whining about them is hypocritical when I was jumped on for a week for not wanting optional guns in D&D.
There are base cards in the Gamma World box. If you don't want to buy a single booster you don't have to.
Actually you may be required to buy a booster pack to play in Worldwide Gamma World Game Day. As for not being collectible, WotC is not introducing randonness and rarity for no reason. They hope some people will buy a lot of cards to get the ones they want.
Me, I have noticed that WotC still has yet to mention adding a CCG element to D&D.
Gamma World is D&Dbased, but it's not D&D and frankly, there doesn't seem to be anything indicating mixing D&D with CCGs.
It all started with an assumption after a tweet about Ravenloft. It's silly.
Actually, it has more to do with the fact that WotC has a history of using side games to test out new ideas for its main brands. 2e's Players Options tested out ideas for 3e (and someone told me that there was a sci-fi game WotC released that did the same, but I am not sure about the details of that claim). d20 Modern tested out ideas for 3.5e and Saga. Saga in turn tested out ideas for 4e. It should not come as a surprise when some of the elements of Gamma World later bleed into WotC's other brand name games. Indeed, we can already see randomized booster cards (in the form of fortune cards) being tested for D&D itself (though this particular product doesn't bother me much). There is a clear pattern of behavior here...
ok let me put this straight here... you are half right (maybe 2/3rds) When TSR was going under they had started a 3e set up (never made it past some notes from what I understand) and it may or may not have been based on 2e's players options... eaither way (well the 3 seperate ways I heard it all from reliable sources that mostly fit togather) it had nothing to do with WotC or what we know of as 3e... d20 modern didn't really test anything for 3.5 eaither... BUT at the end of 3.5 INcarnum, the warlock, the book of 9 swords (why do I feel I am missing a book here) all tested things for 4e...
now as far as the sci fi game (it was alternity) goes, it was also tsr pre WOTC, and the only thing even close to it, is the bare bones idea of skill challenges... but that was 10 years pre 4e...
SO WotC DOes have a habit of testing like you said, but not the ways you said... and I would not be suprised if you where right and this is a test for lots of add on booster pack/ box set ideas...
We don't even know if there will be cards in Ravenloft.
Yes, there are. The cards specifically in Ravonloft RPG have to do with the horror mechanic of the game. They are specific to the setting. They mentioned this durring the seminar.
That's the Shadowfell boxed set you're talking about. It uses a Despair Deck to simulate fear and madness checks. I can understand the confusion as that is a mechanic straight from 2E Ravenloft, but the actual Ravenloft RPG has nothing announced except a possible physical component. I think the Shadowfell set is going to have some nice Ravenloft goodies in it though, since that's where Ravenloft is now.
Regardless, as I specifically said, none of the cards, including the Gamma World boosters, are collectible.
What's the line they didn't cross that kept them from being 'collectible?' I mean, they're at three levels of rarity in randomized booster packs, so you get that little thrill when you find the 'rare' card that wasn't in the last 33 booster packs you bought and completes you collection.
Bill Slavisek specifically said these cards are not meant to be collected during the GenCon preview show. That's about as clear a line as I can see being drawn.
Regardless, as I specifically said, none of the cards, including the Gamma World boosters, are collectible. Buying boosters is optional and therefore whining about them is hypocritical when I was jumped on for a week for not wanting optional guns in D&D.
There are base cards in the Gamma World box. If you don't want to buy a single booster you don't have to.
There's "optional" and then there's optional, and there is a rather significant difference between the two. Here's a RL example: Getting an education is "optional"; but getting married is legitimately optional.If he doesn't have a problem with the cards in the Ravenloft set, then why is he threatening to boycott the entire product?
I never said he didn't have a problem with the cards in Ravenloft. We don't know yet if cards in Ravenloft will be "optional" or optional. Based on what I've read of his arguments, I believe Dave wouldn't have a problem with cards (like the Fortune Cards) that are legitimately optional. Of course, I already said I don't want to speak for him so asking him directly is your best option.
That's ridiculous. The booster packs are optional. That is according to the foremost authority on the game. If you choose to disbelieve him, that's your option but it doesn't make it a good position to hold.
Regardless, as I specifically said, none of the cards, including the Gamma World boosters, are collectible. Buying boosters is optional and therefore whining about them is hypocritical when I was jumped on for a week for not wanting optional guns in D&D.
There are base cards in the Gamma World box. If you don't want to buy a single booster you don't have to.
Actually you may be required to buy a booster pack to play in Worldwide Gamma World Game Day. As for not being collectible, WotC is not introducing randonness and rarity for no reason. They hope some people will buy a lot of cards to get the ones they want.
Yes, for Game Day players will be required to buy booster packs. However, that's a function of the specific event and I have a feeling it has more to do with the large number of people who show up to Game Days, play, and don't spend a dime in the store hosting the event.
Regardless of what WotC might hope for, they've explicitly stated that the cards are not meant to be collected. Wizards would like you to purchase 6 copies of the PHB too, but that doesn't mean the PHB is meant to sell multiple copies.
I find it utterly laughable that the same guy who spent a week telling me I am unreasonable because I don't think guns belong in D&D started a thread to stomp his feet and yell that he's now not even going to buy the product that he wants guns included in!
Wasn't the argument against me "Well, if some people want it, then put it in and let the DM take it out"? Yeah, it was. Well, I like the idea of these non-collectible cards (and that's directly from the mouths of the people who did the GenCon upcoming products seminar) being introduced into the products. I'm not a M:tG player. I'm generally not a collectible game player. These boosters aren't meant to be collectible. If you choose to be a completist, that's your business, but it's no different than someone who purchases every single D&D hardcover book even if they're not going to use them all simply to have a complete set. That doesn't make the books a collectible set.
If you don't want to buy boosters, then don't. You can use just the ones that come in the boxes. Sure, it'll be a short-handed set, but that's the consequence of not adding boosters, which you accept when you choose to not buy boosters. The games aren't unplayable without boosters though.
Starting threads to whine about how you won't buy the products if they're not exactly what you want is hypocritical at best. I'm not threatening to boycott Ravenloft just because I don't want guns in D&D.
The difference is that you don't want WotC to ever publish rules for guns, even optional rules for guns, in any of their products. I have no problem with self contained and optional CCG elements in the game. It is when I am forced to engage in a CCG element that I start getting a little upset. Which would be the equivalent of WotC putting guns in their "core rules." And I would fully support a position that says that WotC should not create rules for guns in their "core rules." Moreover, I have no issue with you not buying a WotC product that has guns in it, optional or not.
As for agreeing to play "shorthanded," that is not a real option. That is like giving you the option not to use guns with your character (or NPCs), but being forced to accept that other players will buy guns for their characters (or NPCs). I can fully understand why that would upset you if you are looking to play in a gun free game. Thankfully, if guns were released as optional rules, you could play in games where they are not used at all. What I want to be able to do is play in games that don't use the rules found in the booster cards at all (without having to heavily house rule a game, or have all the characters play with a major lack of options due to how thin the starter deck will get spread between all the players).
Bill Slavisek specifically said these cards are not meant to be collected during the GenCon preview show. That's about as clear a line as I can see being drawn.
Actually, considering the fact that the cards will be released with three levels of rarity in randomized boosters packs, it is a pretty poor line of distinction. Slavisek's claim is disingenuous. There is nothing to support his claim considering the fact that the cards are distributed in the exact same manner as CCG's are distributed.
That's ridiculous. The booster packs are optional. That is according to the foremost authority on the game. If you choose to disbelieve him, that's your option but it doesn't make it a good position to hold.
On the contrary, it is a very good position to hold. Slvisek's position "as the foremost authority on the game" doesn't make him infallible. His statement is not backed by anything but his word. He claims the Gamma World cards are not collectible. But all the factual evidence indicates they are. They are being released exactly the same way the cards of a CCG game are released, and each player is supposed to create their own deck. In the face of that evidence, his claim comes across as a disingenuous marketing ploy.
And that is really all I have to say on that. I have no problem with CCG elements that are genuinely optional. Releasing core elements of the rules of a game in a CCG model does not make the CCG element genuinely optional.
Releasing core elements of the rules of a game in a CCG model does not make the CCG element genuinely optional.
Core elements are released in the box (those 40 non-collectable cards). Cards from booster packs are optional addition to the game. You can easily play without them.
Playing without the cards that come in randomised packs will put you at a disadvantage, while the person who buys the packs may get the rare and valuable cards. I for one see where Dave is coming from and I two do not like this direction.
The way I heard it the powerful cards are all in the box. It was in one of the podcasts from a while back, I think. They said that you can either buy boosters and use your own deck, which will be made up of a bunch of mutations with good effects, or you can draw from the DM's deck (from the box) and have a chance to draw something good, bad or great. And you aren't supposed to mix the two, so you can either buy boosters and play it safe, getting decent mutations all the time, or skip the boosters, take a chance and maybe get something awesome.
We don't even know if there will be cards in Ravenloft.
Yes, there are. The cards specifically in Ravonloft RPG have to do with the horror mechanic of the game. They are specific to the setting. They mentioned this durring the seminar.
That's the Shadowfell boxed set you're talking about. It uses a Despair Deck to simulate fear and madness checks. I can understand the confusion as that is a mechanic straight from 2E Ravenloft, but the actual Ravenloft RPG has nothing announced except a possible physical component. I think the Shadowfell set is going to have some nice Ravenloft goodies in it though, since that's where Ravenloft is now.
The Despair Deck is what I refer to, thank you. He was talking about the Ravonloft RPG when he mentioned them, though, but they could be in both products.
Releasing core elements of the rules of a game in a CCG model does not make the CCG element genuinely optional.
Core elements are released in the box (those 40 non-collectable cards). Cards from booster packs are optional addition to the game. You can easily play without them.
No, sorry, we have been over that. That claim is disingenuous. I gave reasons as to why both in my first post, and in a few later posts.
Playing without the cards that come in randomised packs will put you at a disadvantage, while the person who buys the packs may get the rare and valuable cards. I for one see where Dave is coming from and I two do not like this direction.
The way I heard it the powerful cards are all in the box. It was in one of the podcasts from a while back, I think. They said that you can either buy boosters and use your own deck, which will be made up of a bunch of mutations with good effects, or you can draw from the DM's deck (from the box) and have a chance to draw something good, bad or great. And you aren't supposed to mix the two, so you can either buy boosters and play it safe, getting decent mutations all the time, or skip the boosters, take a chance and maybe get something awesome.
So, assuming you are correct (and I am not sure you are), you are trying to tell me that the choice between drawing from your own deck, which will always result in a mutation with a good effect, is not a benefit? And you are trying to tell me that a player who plays without that benefit is not at a disadvantage?
Regardless, as I specifically said, none of the cards, including the Gamma World boosters, are collectible.
What's the line they didn't cross that kept them from being 'collectible?' I mean, they're at three levels of rarity in randomized booster packs, so you get that little thrill when you find the 'rare' card that wasn't in the last 33 booster packs you bought and completes you collection.
Bill Slavisek specifically said these cards are not meant to be collected during the GenCon preview show. That's about as clear a line as I can see being drawn.
I can see a clearer line: selling the complete set of cards, unrandomized. Or, better yet, putting them right in the boxed set. That would say "these aren't collectible, they're just part of the game."
He's making a claim about intent - which is fine, he can claim he didn't mean for the cards to be collectible. No one is psychic enough to refute the claim with certainty. Did he also say why they're packaged and marketed exactly like cards for a CCG, instead of being sold in complete packs like 4e power cards?
Yes, for Game Day players will be required to buy booster packs. However, that's a function of the specific event and I have a feeling it has more to do with the large number of people who show up to Game Days, play, and don't spend a dime in the store hosting the event.
So, they're 'optional' to play the game, if your DM chooses not to use them. Just like d20's are optional to play D&D, if your DM uses the ancient art of caelomancy as a resolution mechanic.
Playing without the cards that come in randomised packs will put you at a disadvantage, while the person who buys the packs may get the rare and valuable cards. I for one see where Dave is coming from and I two do not like this direction.
The way I heard it the powerful cards are all in the box. It was in one of the podcasts from a while back, I think. They said that you can either buy boosters and use your own deck, which will be made up of a bunch of mutations with good effects, or you can draw from the DM's deck (from the box) and have a chance to draw something good, bad or great. And you aren't supposed to mix the two, so you can either buy boosters and play it safe, getting decent mutations all the time, or skip the boosters, take a chance and maybe get something awesome.
So, assuming you are correct (and I am not sure you are), you are trying to tell me that the choice between drawing from your own deck, which will always result in a mutation with a good effect, is not a benefit? And you are trying to tell me that a player who plays without that benefit is not at a disadvantage?
At a disadvantage? Role-playing isn't a competition. We aren't talking about X-Box Live or Monopoly here. And before you go rolling your eyes and acting all smug, what's better: a d20, or a coin with the number 10 on one side and 11 on the other?
Playing without the cards that come in randomised packs will put you at a disadvantage, while the person who buys the packs may get the rare and valuable cards. I for one see where Dave is coming from and I two do not like this direction.
The way I heard it the powerful cards are all in the box. It was in one of the podcasts from a while back, I think. They said that you can either buy boosters and use your own deck, which will be made up of a bunch of mutations with good effects, or you can draw from the DM's deck (from the box) and have a chance to draw something good, bad or great. And you aren't supposed to mix the two, so you can either buy boosters and play it safe, getting decent mutations all the time, or skip the boosters, take a chance and maybe get something awesome.
So, assuming you are correct (and I am not sure you are), you are trying to tell me that the choice between drawing from your own deck, which will always result in a mutation with a good effect, is not a benefit? And you are trying to tell me that a player who plays without that benefit is not at a disadvantage?
At a disadvantage? Role-playing isn't a competition. We aren't talking about X-Box Live or Monopoly here. And before you go rolling your eyes and acting all smug, what's better: a d20, or a coin with the number 10 on one side and 11 on the other?
Well, role-playing isn't a competition. Good to know! That MUST mean that balance is completely irrelevant to this hobby. Player A can play with a massively more powerful character than player B, and it isn't an "advantage" because this is a cooperative role-playing game. Oh, wait... one of the biggest complaints about 3e D&D, a role-playing game, is how abysmally poor its balance was. Indeed, 4e's balance is one of its major selling points. It seems that players of role-playing games do actually care about balance, and unfair advantages. It seems that having one person at the table who has a drastic advantage DOES actually ruin the fun of the other players at the table. Weird that. So, the OBVIOUS way to cater to the fans of 4e, who happen to like balanced games, is to remove balance from 4e and redistribute a player character's power along the lines of their player's real life economic capabilities. That will be fun!
Do you actually have a tenable position you want to defend? Because, first you claim that it isn't a disadvantage not to be able to use a player mutation deck. And then, when it is pointed out that it is fairly obvious that it is, you move your goal posts to say that balance is not important in role-playing games. Except, based on how many 4e players trump its class balance as a major benefit of this edition, and how many people complained about the balance of 3e, that is obviously not true either. So what is next? Are we going to claim the sky has polka dots and the sun talks to people?
P.S. The answer to your trick question is that neither the d20, nor the coin, is better. Rather, the better option is the ability to pick and choose whether you want your coin, or your d20, based on whether a target has an AC of 12+ or not. In other words, the better option is the ability to choose to pick from either the DMs deck, or your own, based on whether you need a sure fire good mutation, or you are willing to take the risk of a poor mutation in order to potentially gain a really good one. That is, of course, assuming that your analysis of which mutations will be how powerful is accurate... there is still the posibility that the booster mutations will just end up being hands down better than anything else.
Well done.
Stormbringer says he doesn't like the fact that people buying the cards will have an advantage over people not buying the cards.
You say that they won't have an advantage, because you have heard that most of the most powerful cards will actually be found in the DM starter deck. The booster packs that players use to build their own decks just won't have any bad cards in them, while the DM decks will.
I ask you, assuming you are correct, if you really think it is not an advantage to have your own deck from which you can choose to pick a card, a deck that doesn't bear any risk of causing you to draw a negative mutation.
You seem to agree that this is an advantage, because in your next post to me you claim that as this is a cooperative roleplaying game, and not a competitive console game or board game, balance really doesn't matter.
Except, imbalance really upset people in 3e, and is a major selling point of 4e.
Are you now claiming that, discussions of rudeness aside, this is not the conversation we just had? Do you not, then, agree that the choice to choose between your own deck, or the DMs deck, is not a major advantage? If so, I am completely dumbfounded at how you can make that claim. Your d20/coin analogy is a good one. It shows EXACTLY why the player with his own booster deck is at a huge advantage. When fighting a monster with an AC of 10, it is far better to toss that coin than it is to roll a d20. A d20 will give you a 45% chance to miss. That coin will give you a 100% chance to hit. Meanwhile, when fighting a creature with an AC of 13 the d20 is a far better option. The d20 gives you a 40% chance to hit. The coin gives you a 0% chance to hit. The ability to choose between the d20 or the coin based on the situation you find yourself in is a major advantage. The ability to say, "everyone in my group has drawn a fairly poor mutation power, I am going to draw from my sure thing personal deck that I built with boosters," AND "everyone in my party has drawn a fairly potent mutation. I am going to try my luck and see if I can get something even better, and I don't mind the possibility of drawing something weaker at this moment in time," all based on situation, is a HUGE benefit!
And that ignores the fact that the cards in the booster will have a rarity system, and (so it seems) will be balanced roughly along that rarity system. Since human error is a factor in the power of these cards, some of the rare cards might come out more powerful in play than the designers thought they would be in theory. That player deck might very possibly end up being a "coin" with the numbers 10-18 instead of 10-11, with only the players willing to spend the most money getting the number 13 through 18 as options (as they collect the better uncommon and rare cards).
So, I am sorry if I seem rude. I am not trying to be. But I am a little frustrated and dumbfounded by what you are saying...
P.S. Stormbringer was saying that he agrees with me, and you are trying to convince him that he shouldn't. So, the conversation really does have something to do with me. Which shouldn't be so surprising, because what we are discussing is my original post.
You seem to agree that this is an advantage, because in your next post to me you claim that as this is a cooperative roleplaying game, and not a competitive console game or board game, balance really doesn't matter.
...
So, I am sorry if I seem rude. I am not trying to be. But I am a little frustrated and dumbfounded by what you are saying...
You say you're confused by what I'm saying, but what you say I'm saying isn't what I'm saying.
I'm going to play Gamma World with no boosters. I'm not going to feel like I have to buy boosters because I might get some awesome rare card. I don't have to feel that way because I'm not going to a tournament or playing against people I want to beat. I don't care if the booster cards are balanced because they work the same as the box deck or because they work in a different manner that is also balanced or if they are decidedly more powerful with a note attached that says "only use if everyone agrees and also uses boosters". The fact that it is a cooperative game means that a group can choose which way they want to play. Mine has chosen the no-booster route, so our game will be balanced (or as balanced as a Gamma World game can be).
I agree if gamma world fails and people give feed back saying the reason they did not buy or support it was the CCG element maybe then wizards will get the idea. They are planning to put them in the new Ravenloft RPG and I suspect we will see them in the mainstream D&D game some day.
Ok, please, don't spread misinformation. We do not know that they are planning to put a CCG element into Ravenloft. We do not even know that Ravenloft will include cards. We have heard that Ravenloft will include some sort of physical element to its rules. One person says that at the GenCon conference they mentioned Ravenloft using cards in some capacity or another for fear and madness, but the person may have been mixing up the Shadowfell boxed set's Despair deck with Ravenloft. The Despair deck is not randomized. If Ravenloft does end up using cards, it is VERY possible that it will not use a randomized format. It is also very possible it will. Right now, in regards to Ravenloft, all we have is supposition. While I fully support letting WotC know that we would prefer not to see a CCG element in Ravenloft, we should not claim that we know that WotC is planning to put CCG elements into Ravenloft, or even cards into Ravenloft. Right now, we just don't know what they are planning. If we want to be taken seriously then doomsaying, and prophesying, should be avoided. When I say prophesying I refer to the act of claiming that we know what the future will bring.
I hope I don't come across as sounding harsh when I write that. I really don't mean to. But the doomsaying and prophesying that goes on on these boards really bothers me. It is one thing to complain about something you don't like. It is one thing to say that you worry, based on the evidence at hand, that something might come to pass. It is quite another to claim that it is an empirical truth that something will happen when we have no evidence to that effect.
On subject, this does't REALLY affect me, but I find myself agreeing with Gazra.... again. I'm just going to play without boosters, and I probably won't feel at some intense disadvantage.
Ok, please, don't spread misinformation. We do not know that they are planning to put a CCG element into Ravenloft. We do not even know that Ravenloft will include cards. We have heard that Ravenloft will include some sort of physical element to its rules. .
you know it is not often I get to say this online, but I really respect you even though I disagree...
P.S. Thank you GMforPowergamers.
Well, while it is certainly true that there will be no imbalance between the players in a group if the group unanimously agrees to the "no booster cards" house rule, that option leaves a sour taste in my mouth for two reasons: one, that leaves a dearth of player options at the table; two, if that is the only way you are willing to play (and it would be the only way I am willing to play due to my hatred of CCG models of distribution), that seriously limits the number of groups that you can play with. As such, that still leaves this version of Gamma World as an unappealing product to me.
P.S. Thank you GMforPowergamers.
True, but I guess I just got lucky that everyone in my group feels the same way. I don't want to buy randoom boosters any more than you, but look at it this way: Would you get the game if the boosters didn't exist? If they had just announced they were putting out the game and it had a set deck of mutations and tech cards and that there would be no randomized booster packs, would you buy the game and play it? If so, then you shouldn't let the boosters stop you, because just getting the boxed set is the same result either way.
And you can still vote with your wallet by not buying the booster packs. I think that's actually a much better way to send the message. If a whole lot of people buy the boxed set, but almost no one buys the cards, then the message they receive will be that people are cool with the idea of the genre games, but not with the idea of randomized booster pack supplements.
Well, while it is certainly true that there will be no imbalance between the players in a group if the group unanimously agrees to the "no booster cards" house rule, that option leaves a sour taste in my mouth for two reasons: one, that leaves a dearth of player options at the table; two, if that is the only way you are willing to play (and it would be the only way I am willing to play due to my hatred of CCG models of distribution), that seriously limits the number of groups that you can play with. As such, that still leaves this version of Gamma World as an unappealing product to me.
P.S. Thank you GMforPowergamers.
True, but I guess I just got lucky that everyone in my group feels the same way. I don't want to buy randoom boosters any more than you, but look at it this way: Would you get the game if the boosters didn't exist? If they had just announced they were putting out the game and it had a set deck of mutations and tech cards and that there would be no randomized booster packs, would you buy the game and play it? If so, then you shouldn't let the boosters stop you, because just getting the boxed set is the same result either way.
And you can still vote with your wallet by not buying the booster packs. I think that's actually a much better way to send the message. If a whole lot of people buy the boxed set, but almost no one buys the cards, then the message they receive will be that people are cool with the idea of the genre games, but not with the idea of randomized booster pack supplements.
I don't agree with you, and I have written why in another thread. Anyone intrested in reading my reasons can find them here: GenCon 2010 - Gamma World 7th time .
You can do what you like with your money. I won't be spending money on Gamma World. If WotC wants me to spend money on products such as Gamma World, they have my customer feedback.
Personally, I'm hoping Gamma World fails and they blame it on the "zany" direction that they chose to go in, so that some day down the road, they do Gamma World right.
Have you ever seen the first two editions of Gamma World. 'Zany' is putting it mildly. ;)
Well, while it is certainly true that there will be no imbalance between the players in a group if the group unanimously agrees to the "no booster cards" house rule, that option leaves a sour taste in my mouth for two reasons: one, that leaves a dearth of player options at the table; two, if that is the only way you are willing to play (and it would be the only way I am willing to play due to my hatred of CCG models of distribution), that seriously limits the number of groups that you can play with. As such, that still leaves this version of Gamma World as an unappealing product to me.
The booster cards are optional which means they are a "house" rule whether you use them or not. They are just as optional as any other game where they bring out more stuff like more powers for classes in D&D as in Martial Power. The format is just different and nothing says I have to allow for its use. You are attributing a lot of success, on the level of Magic, to a game where the card component is only one aspect to the game and not the sole focus. I will buy the Gamma World game and its supplements and I will probably pick up the occasional booster pack just for fun here and there as will most people, I imagine.
Will you have your completists who want every single card in the set? Certainly. I honestly do not believe, though, that there will be people who feel left out even if you do end up playing with these guys. It is only one aspect of the game and even if you allow for the use of player decks, I doubt it is going to be that much of a serious advantage that it will make buying all those cards to build the "perfect" deck worthwhile. The game would have to be hugely successful on the scale of Magic, if not more because the cards are not the central focus, for this to be the case.
So boycott if you must, but I hope the game does well as I would like to see it around for a while. Everything I've read on it makes me believe it is a fun and entertaining game. Sounds fun in the same way Paranoia or Toon is, which is right up my alley.
If gamma world was complete in the box, yes I would buy it. As it is, no I will not.
That wasn't the question. The question is: If WotC had announced Gamma World as just the boxed set with the same cards it has in it now, and had not said there will be optional booster packs, would you have bought it? If your answer is yes, then you have no reason not to still buy it. If your answer is no, then you weren't going to buy it anyway. And if you don't buy the boxed set because you don't like the boosters, you aren't voting with your wallet because you aren't buying any less boosters than you would by just buying the boxed set. You'll just be making WotC think that no one cares about Gamma World.
If gamma world was complete in the box, yes I would buy it. As it is, no I will not.
That wasn't the question. The question is: If WotC had announced Gamma World as just the boxed set with the same cards it has in it now, and had not said there will be optional booster packs, would you have bought it? If your answer is yes, then you have no reason not to still buy it. If your answer is no, then you weren't going to buy it anyway. And if you don't buy the boxed set because you don't like the boosters, you aren't voting with your wallet because you aren't buying any less boosters than you would by just buying the boxed set. You'll just be making WotC think that no one cares about Gamma World.
This is actually not true. The reason's why it is not true are laid out in the link I provided with my last post. If you give consumer feedback to the effect that you are not going to buy the product because of the boosters, and then you boycott the game, you do (in effect) "vote with your wallet" that you hate CCG elements in games and will not purchase those games if they contain them.
And you flat out state a fallacy when you say that you have no reason not to buy it now if you would have bought it without the booster cards. There is, in fact, a reason. The reason is the inclusion of booster cards. Saying that is not a reason is allegorically equivalent to saying that if you would have eaten a soup without some ingredient in that soup that you happen to think tastes like fecal matter then you should be willing to eat the soup with the fecal matter tasting ingredient in it, and just east around the ingredient. I don't like ingredients that taste like fecal matter in my soup. I don't like CCG elements in my RPGs.
And sorry mouthymerc, but the use of the booster cards is an assumed component of Gamma World (according to the devs). Choosing to use the cards is not a house rule. Choosing not to use them is.
So, I too will continue to boycott this product. The inclusion of the CCG element is enough of a turnoff that I will not be purchasing this product. WotC has lost my patronage on this product as a result of their design choices. Next time they are designing a game they can look at the sales of this game and decide whether it is in their interests to loose my patronage (perhaps in order to gain more patronage from another source) or not. I trust them to do what is in their own best interests, but there is absolutely no way they can market a CCG element into a core element of a game's rules that will still result in me purchasing their product. No amount of people who don't mind that element telling me I should buy it anyways is going to change that.
If gamma world was complete in the box, yes I would buy it. As it is, no I will not.
That wasn't the question.
Yes that was actually your question. You asked if the game was advertised as a complete unit would I buy it. Yes I would have bought a "complete board game".
The answer is still no, I will not buy a "incomplete board game".
Now I realize between the handful of topics we are both responding to it doesn't matter what WotC puts out you will buy it. That's cool man, I cannot and will not do that. Some of their marketing ideas are just not my idea of fun.
As far as CCG's go I have been burned once, I'm not going to let that happen again. Anyone remember the Decipher CCGof star wars? I have nearly the entire original set, & all of the expansions as well. But when Decipher went out of business the cards became worthless pieces of cheap cardboard. Been there done that its just not going to happen again.
now not to cause a fight or anything...If I were WotC or Hasbro and this is what I saw (and this included cyber dave) I would say the answer is to plan exactly as they are now (with booosters) but just not say anything about the boosters...
now I am not even saying ly... just don't add to the statement "Here is the self contained game gamma world, it uses cards and dice... the first box is due out in oct, there will be some support for it comeing right up..." then 2-3 weeks after the box is out, you announce more cards...
you would have bought (and hopefuly enjoyed) the basic game, and others get there CCG parts...
There is only one way WotC can keep people like me buying their products. All core systems of any RPG they are trying to sell to someone like me have to be CCG free.
And sorry mouthymerc, but the use of the booster cards is an assumed component of Gamma World (according to the devs). Choosing to use the cards is not a house rule. Choosing not to use them is.
No more core than Martial power or any other power book for D&D. Nothing I have read tells me you need to buy the booster cards to play. They will expand your play experience, but they are not essential and you can play the game without them. As I said, I think you are attaching way too much relevance to them being that they are only one aspect of the game.
Some of us have made a point about wanting to be able to buy a 'complete game.'
This is an objection to the CCG model. You see, if a game comes out, and it's playable 'as is,' that's a 'complete game.' If it has suplements, then the game plus the suplements are the 'complete game.' Even if it's the exact same game that was 'complete' before the suplements hit. Context matters.
With randomized booster packs, you can only buy the complete game by buying an indeterminate number of booster packs. You may even be unable to obtain the complete game, no matter how many you buy, if you're particularly unlucky.
Once cards for a game go into randomized booster packs, it's a CCG. There's no way around it. No amount of equivocation about 'optional rules,' or hair-splitting by enthusiastic apologists can change that.
If all the cards sold in booster packs were also sold in a complete, non-collectible deck, /that/ would address the 'complete game' objection.
Selling cards in booster packs and saying "they're not meant to be collectible" is like selling packs of cigarettes and saying "they're not meant to be smoked." You can say it if it makes you feel better.
Some of us have made a point about wanting to be able to buy a 'complete game.'
This is an objection to the CCG model. You see, if a game comes out, and it's playable 'as is,' that's a 'complete game.' If it has suplements, then the game plus the suplements are the 'complete game.' Even if it's the exact same game that was 'complete' before the suplements hit. Context matters.
With randomized booster packs, you can only buy the complete game by buying an indeterminate number of booster packs. You may even be unable to obtain the complete game, no matter how many you buy, if you're particularly unlucky.
Once cards for a game go into randomized booster packs, it's a CCG. There's no way around it. No amount of equivocation about 'optional rules,' or hair-splitting by enthusiastic apologists can change that.
If all the cards sold in booster packs were also sold in a complete, non-collectible deck, /that/ would address the 'complete game' objection.
Selling cards in booster packs and saying "they're not meant to be collectible" is like selling packs of cigarettes and saying "they're not meant to be smoked." You can say it if it makes you feel better.
I respect you don't like the boosters I really do, but just being random is not the same as collectable...
I respect you don't like the boosters I really do, but just being random is not the same as collectable...
OK, let us all see you split that hair. How is are cards of varying rarity, sold blind and randomized in booster packs, not 'collectable' cards?
Allow me to caution you against begging the question ("because the publisher says they're not collectable") or resorting to a 'distinction without a difference.'
Some of us have made a point about wanting to be able to buy a 'complete game.'
It has never been touted as a "complete" game. At least no more so than playing D&D with just the base three books. You can play the game with just the base box, if you choose. Or you can get the supplements that they already plan to release. Or you can buy booster cards and expand you play experience. Nothing says you have to, just like nothing says you have to buy Power books. Even if they sold a box set of the complete cards, it would only be as complete until the next batch of cards that come out. There is no "complete" game nor will there be until they stop producing products. At that point if you own everything you will own a "complete" game.
Should we start a betting chart and let people buy spots?
From what I understood in the seminar, the cards are not detailed and made into common, uncommon, rare, mythic ratings for them. Each one does something and that is it, the random quantity isn't because of a collectable aspect of the cards, but to surprise the player/DM with what they do.
If cards are collected, however, there are some basics to follow to build a "deck" for the character. This is to avoid some munchkin min/maxing with the cards to take advantage of the character's power set. (the example used at the seminar is getting all the cards that knock down enemies with a character that does extra damage to prone foes)
This ain't rocket science, guys. The fortune cards, gamma world cards and all are not CCG's, just an additional jolt to the game.
WotC is the master at designing and marketing CCGs, if they decided to make a Gamma World CCG and market it, they could and would. So I do not see any consipiracy by WotC to turn my precious RPGs into CCGs. In any 4e supplemental source book I can expect so many feats, powers and possibly magic items. If Gamma World 4e supplements maintain that same ratio with mutant powers and artifacts only produced on cards instead of listed in a book, then I would be fine with that. Nothing I have seen in the future release catalog, looking like random booster packs for Gamma World, so I do not know where people are getting that idea. I have seen Gamma World supplemental box sets with new rules, adventure, couunters, tiles and cards.
Splitting hairs... really?
From what I understood in the seminar, the cards are not detailed and made into common, uncommon, rare, mythic ratings for them. Each one does something and that is it, the random quantity isn't because of a collectable aspect of the cards, but to surprise the player/DM with what they do.
If cards are collected, however, there are some basics to follow to build a "deck" for the character. This is to avoid some munchkin min/maxing with the cards to take advantage of the character's power set. (the example used at the seminar is getting all the cards that knock down enemies with a character that does extra damage to prone foes)
This ain't rocket science, guys. The fortune cards, gamma world cards and all are not CCG's, just an additional jolt to the game.
... Nothing I have seen in the future release catalog, looking like random booster packs for Gamma World, so I do not know where people are getting that idea. I have seen Gamma World supplemental box sets with new rules, adventure, couunters, tiles and cards.
Have I been ninja'd.
Thax are you saying they are marketing random booster packs? From your post above one could assume as such, but it is only an assumption.
As I read the information for the game it is not complete. I've been over this. Call it whatever you want, I'm not going to spend my money on a incomplete product.
MB knows how to make board games. Have you ever opened one of their games to find that 1/2 of the content does not come in the original packaging? ... Unless they have started making expansion packs I don't know about, I frankly doubt it.
If WotC wants to start making board games I'm cool with that. I'm not cool with a CCG model, mixed with D&D, or the for-mentioned board game.
Gamma World is not a board game. It is a role-playing game. No role-playing game has ever been complete as people always want more options. Just as you can play D&D with the PHB, DMG and MM, so can you play Gamma World with the basic set. You can also expand your options, like D&D, by buying the supplements and booster cards. The choice is yours. When they sell D&D, even though you can play the game with just the three books, they create other options to expand you gaming experience. The hope is that the options will be appealing and you will spend more money. The cards, while they may be appealing even if the format is not, are not necessary to game play. They are an option like any other supplement.
Splitting hairs... really?
Yes, really.
From what I understood in the seminar, the cards are not detailed and made into common, uncommon, rare, mythic ratings for them.
Common and rare were mentioned, at least. So, the lack of 'mythic' makes it not collectable?
Each one does something and that is it, the random quantity isn't because of a collectable aspect of the cards, but to surprise the player/DM with what they do.
So it's the distinction without a difference, then: They're not packaged and sold exactly like CCG cards because they're 'collectable,' but to be a 'surprise.'
I respect you don't like the boosters I really do, but just being random is not the same as collectable...
What, exactly, do you think collectible means? Because, the dictionary I have in front of me says "worth collecting," or "sought after by collectors." Collectible card games are artificially made collectible via a particular model of marketing. That model of marketing specifically makes use of randomized booster packs filled with cards that have varying levels of print releases. This makes the cards collectible, because people who desire a complete set of cards must put quite a bit of effort into getting their hands on the cards with limited production runs, which thus makes the cards "sought after by collectors." They also tend to balance the cards along the lines of their levels of limited production, as this makes them "worth collecting." We have been informed that Gamma World booster packs will be random, and will be produced with three levels of print release. Those three levels are called "common," "uncommon," and "rare." We have been informed that these cards will be balanced roughly along the lines of their level of "rarity." To claim that that is not "collectible" is ridiculous...
And sorry mouthymerc, but the use of the booster cards is an assumed component of Gamma World (according to the devs). Choosing to use the cards is not a house rule. Choosing not to use them is.
No more core than Martial power or any other power book for D&D. Nothing I have read tells me you need to buy the booster cards to play. They will expand your play experience, but they are not essential and you can play the game without them. As I said, I think you are attaching way too much relevance to them being that they are only one aspect of the game.
You are absolutely right. Class powers are a core system of D&D, as are feats, paragon paths, builds, and the rest of the material released in the power books. Should WotC ever start releasing splat material for any of those types of rules via a randomized collectible distribution model I will stop purchasing any D&D (or, at that point in time, WotC) products.
When I say I am only ok with optional and self contained CCG material being released for any RPG I am willing to buy, that is exactly what I mean. I don't mean "optional" in the sense that you don't have to buy splat material; I mean "optional" as in the rules being released are not part of the core systems of the game. For example, the "fortune" mechanic doesn't exist in D&D at all, unless you buy the fortune cards. Since mutations, however, do exist in your game (even if you don't buy the booster packs), and splat material for that core mechanic of the game is released in a CCG distribution model, WotC has lost my patronage in regards to that game. Any time they follow that marketing model in the future they will loose my patronage on another product line again. If they were ever to release any of the types of rules found in a power book via a CCG model of distribution, you better believe I would start boycotting D&D (and WotC completely, at that point in time).
When I say I am only ok with optional and self contained CCG material being released for any RPG I am willing to buy, that is exactly what I mean. I don't mean "optional" in the sense that you don't have to buy splat material; I mean "optional" as in the rules being released are not part of the core systems of the game. For example, the "fortune" mechanic doesn't exist in D&D at all, unless you buy the fortune cards. Since mutations, however, do exist in your game (even if you don't buy the booster packs), and splat material for that core mechanic of the game is released in a CCG distribution model, WotC has lost my patronage in regards to that game. Any time they follow that marketing model in the future they will loose my patronage on another product line again. If they were ever to release any of the types of rules found in a power book via a CCG model of distribution, you better believe I would start boycotting D&D (and WotC completely, at that point in time).
Hey, I understand your position and can respect it. I just don't agree with its relevance and think it isn't as big an issue. Personally, I like the random booster card way of adding more powers and tech to your game. I think it fits the fun random nature of the game. It works for me because I know I will be the only one buying them and creating the decks I will use when I run it. I just do not see the game becoming so popular that this becomes an issue.
The two supplements planned, Legion of Gold and Famine in Far-go, are also said to contain new race options along with mutations and tech. One could probably just purchase Gamma World box set and just those two supplements and get along just fine. That being said, they do not have the booster cards on their product list so it is certainly possible that the format of the cards may change before they are released. Only time will tell.
Now who's reading the words to literally...
Call it whatever you have to, to make this acceptable to your wallet. It is an incomplete game, forcing a CCG elements on it does not make it less so.
You mean like calling Gamma World the role-playing game a board game? You're right, call it whatever you want to make yourself feel better about not liking it.
Call it whatever you want, I'm not going to spend my money on a incomplete product.
Wise decision indeed! Hopefully you haven't spent a cent on D&D 4E? They still make new books forchristsake! When 4E is complete product (i.e. when 5E comes out) that's when we buy it! We ain't some fools buying incomplete products, mind you!
And you flat out state a fallacy when you say that you have no reason not to buy it now if you would have bought it without the booster cards. There is, in fact, a reason. The reason is the inclusion of booster cards. Saying that is not a reason is allegorically equivalent to saying that if you would have eaten a soup without some ingredient in that soup that you happen to think tastes like fecal matter then you should be willing to eat the soup with the fecal matter tasting ingredient in it, and just east around the ingredient. I don't like ingredients that taste like fecal matter in my soup. I don't like CCG elements in my RPGs.
That is a very, very bad analogy. This ingredient you're talking about isn't something entirely separate on the menu that you have to specifically ask the waiter to put in your soup. In fact, your analogy only works if the booster pack cards are included with the boxed set, which is what you say you want.
A better analogy would be a pizza place with a list of toppings to choose from on the menu. If no one orders anchovies, then they will keep serving pizza and eventually stop offering anchovies. But, if people just see anchovies on the menu and decide to eat somewhere else, the place will either close down or start selling something else instead of pizza. And if a few people tell the owner, "We're not eating here because you offer anchovies as a topping choice," he's going to say, "Well, you're just being selfish. And I don't base what I sell on the opinions of people who can't be pleased unless I cater to their every whim. Get out of my restaurant."
That is fine mouthymerc. You don't have to feel the same way about CCG elements as I do. You are welcome to your own subjective opinion. However, you should understand that your subjective opinion does not prove mine wrong. Moreover, your subjective opinion is not going to convince me (or anyone who thinks like me) to purchase games marketed such as Gamma World. WoTC should keep that in mind when deciding how to market their products to their consumers...
WotC should keep in mind that people have different opinions on how to put out a game? Maybe they do, and that's why they have optional boosters for people who want them and a complete boxed set for people who don't. Everything you're complaining about would make more sense if the cards were only available in the boosters.
Nothing I have seen in the future release catalog, looking like random booster packs for Gamma World, so I do not know where people are getting that idea. I have seen Gamma World supplemental box sets with new rules, adventure, couunters, tiles and cards.
That being said, they do not have the booster cards on their product list so it is certainly possible that the format of the cards may change before they are released. Only time will tell.
This was answered back on post 24. Wizards has a pdf about the product. Troll and Toad thinks it will exist. Do you need more links?
Call it whatever you want, I'm not going to spend my money on a incomplete product.
Wise decision indeed! Hopefully you haven't spent a cent on D&D 4E? They still make new books for godsake! When 4E is complete product (i.e. when 5E comes out) that's when we buy it! We ain't some fools buying incomplete products, mind you!
For all of your attempts to be condescending to Thunder_Dragonbane, he has a point. He might not be expressing it perfectly, but that doesn't mean that what he is trying to express is not valid. D&D, while always expanding, can be considered "complete" at any given time by owning all of the books released to date. This is an interesting model. It both allows the game to be expandable, and collectible (thus causing people like me or Dragonbane, who do desire to own complete games, to work at purchasing all of the books). However, because it is not marketed and distributed in the same manner as a CCG, but rather marketed and released in splat books that contain non randomized material, it is possible to calculate the price cealing that one must reach in order to own a complete game. That price ceiling makes the attempt to collect a "complete game" seem possible, especially if one starts buying the product at its first release (and thus spreads the purchase of the line out over time). The CCG marketing model raises that price ceiling to infinite levels. Suddenly it becomes impossible to calculate how much money it will cost you to own a complete set of rules, even at first release, because the formula required to calculate how much it would cost you to own all of the material released to date gains an X factor whose value can not be listed as a fixed number. Instead, it becomes a number whose value depends on random luck, and is thus potentially infinite. Since people like me or Dragonbane desire to own complete games, a potentially infinite price ceiling to attaining that goal, at a product's initial release no less, is a major turn off.
Trying to twist his words, and intentionally ignore his point, just so that you can feel like you have attained some sort of (false) rhetorical victory, doesn't make his position any less valid. Moreover, it isn't going to make people like him (or me) want to buy this product. WotC should keep that in mind...
That is fine mouthymerc. You don't have to feel the same way about CCG elements as I do. You are welcome to your own subjective opinion. However, you should understand that your subjective opinion does not prove mine wrong. Moreover, your subjective opinion is not going to convince me (or anyone who thinks like me) to purchase games marketed such as Gamma World. WoTC should keep that in mind when deciding how to market their products to their consumers...
Of course, just as subjective as your opinion. I'm just putting mine out as a counterpoint to yours. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just show that your opinion is just that, your opinion. Many people like the card aspect even if you do not.
And you flat out state a fallacy when you say that you have no reason not to buy it now if you would have bought it without the booster cards. There is, in fact, a reason. The reason is the inclusion of booster cards. Saying that is not a reason is allegorically equivalent to saying that if you would have eaten a soup without some ingredient in that soup that you happen to think tastes like fecal matter then you should be willing to eat the soup with the fecal matter tasting ingredient in it, and just east around the ingredient. I don't like ingredients that taste like fecal matter in my soup. I don't like CCG elements in my RPGs.
That is a very, very bad analogy. This ingredient you're talking about isn't something entirely separate on the menu that you have to specifically ask the waiter to put in your soup. In fact, your analogy only works if the booster pack cards are included with the boxed set, which is what you say you want.
A better analogy would be a pizza place with a list of toppings to choose from on the menu. If no one orders anchovies, then they will keep serving pizza and eventually stop offering anchovies. But, if people just see anchovies on the menu and decide to eat somewhere else, the place will either close down or start selling something else instead of pizza. And if a few people tell the owner, "We're not eating here because you offer anchovies as a topping choice," he's going to say, "Well, you're just being selfish. And I don't base what I sell on the opinions of people who can't be pleased unless I cater to their every whim. Get out of my restaurant."
You are wrong. Your analogy is not better. The core system of mutations is included in the game at release. The mechanic whose splat material is released via the booster cards is part of the game whether you buy the splat material or not, and the core game comes out with a starter deck for use with that mechanic. If you want a pizza analogy instead of a soup analogy, it works as follows: I hate anchovies. I won't eat pizza with anchovies on it. Even if I pick the anchovies off, I can still taste the anchovies on the pizza. I also don't feel I should go through the effort of picking off topics to eat lunch. Thus I won't order a pizza with anchovies on it. If a pizzeria has a policy that says that it will always put at least 1 anchovy on a pizza, I won't order or eat their pizza's. I don't care that I don't have to order extra anchovies. I don't care that I can pick off that single anchovy. That anchovy ruins the taste and experience of eating a pizza for me. Thus, if the pizzeria wants to sell a pizza to me it must give me the option of having no anchovies on my pizza when I order it.
That is fine mouthymerc. You don't have to feel the same way about CCG elements as I do. You are welcome to your own subjective opinion. However, you should understand that your subjective opinion does not prove mine wrong. Moreover, your subjective opinion is not going to convince me (or anyone who thinks like me) to purchase games marketed such as Gamma World. WoTC should keep that in mind when deciding how to market their products to their consumers...
WotC should keep in mind that people have different opinions on how to put out a game? Maybe they do, and that's why they have optional boosters for people who want them and a complete boxed set for people who don't. Everything you're complaining about would make more sense if the cards were only available in the boosters.
Um, no. See, no matter how many times you say that, or how much WotC might wish what you were saying would be accepted by all of us, it isn't going to be true, and it isn't going to be accepted by all of us. We don't see the boosters as optional content, because the mechanic that the booster act like a splat for is a core mechanic of the game. If the cards were only available in the booster, and the rules that the cards distributed were not mentioned in the core Gamma World product at all (and were not necessary for play), then the cards actually would become optional and self contained. As is, people like us won't purchase those cards. And WotC should keep that in mind, because if people like you can't sustain the product line with an acceptable/maximum likely margin of profit it is people like me that WotC is going to have to think about catering to with future products.
This was answered back on post 24. Wizards has a pdf about the product. Troll and Toad thinks it will exist. Do you need more links?
No, I remember that now. Thanks. Still, it is interesting that it still doesn't show up on the products list.
That is fine mouthymerc. You don't have to feel the same way about CCG elements as I do. You are welcome to your own subjective opinion. However, you should understand that your subjective opinion does not prove mine wrong. Moreover, your subjective opinion is not going to convince me (or anyone who thinks like me) to purchase games marketed such as Gamma World. WoTC should keep that in mind when deciding how to market their products to their consumers...
Of course, just as subjective as your opinion. I'm just putting mine out as a counterpoint to yours. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just show that your opinion is just that, your opinion. Many people like the card aspect even if you do not.
Absolutely. My hatred of CCGs is entirely subjective. I am not trying to pass off that hatred as anything but a subjective opinion (though some of the facts that my hatred is based on are objective, despite some people on this thread trying to claim that those facts are not true). And I know that some people like the CCG aspect even if I do not. However, that is not going to cause me to purchase the product line. As I am not going to be purchasing the product line because of this CCG aspect, this is my consumer feedback to WotC. It might come to pass that enough people love the idea and don't mind the idea of a CCG aspect in their RPGs that this model of distribution becomes a smart business choice. If that is the case, WotC should use it! Like I said, I expect them to do what is in their best interest (and in the best interest of their share-holders), whether that suits my best interest or not. However, should Gamma World not do as well as WotC would like they should keep my consumer feedback in mind. I will not be buying any product that includes this level of CCG content in it. It seems quite a few other people won't be buying it under these conditions either...
Um, no. See, no matter how many times you say that, or how much WotC might wish what you were saying would be accepted by all of us, it isn't going to be true, and it isn't going to be accepted by all of us. We don't see the boosters as optional content, because the mechanic that the booster act like a splat for is a core mechanic of the game.
Take your own advice. Just because you do not see the cards as an optional part of the game doesn't make it so no matter how many times you say it isn't optional. Just because you want everyone to believe that the game can not be run without the boosters at this point does not make it true. The game can be run without the booster cards no matter how many times you try to convince people otherwise.
As is, people like us won't purchase those cards. And WotC should keep that in mind, because if people like you can't sustain the product line with an acceptable/maximum likely margin of profit it is people like me that WotC is going to have to think about catering to with future products.
The game will rise or fall on its own merits no matter what. If it fails you can go scream from the rooftops on how right you were and if it succeeds I will be happy because it will be around for a while with more products.
Um, no. See, no matter how many times you say that, or how much WotC might wish what you were saying would be accepted by all of us, it isn't going to be true, and it isn't going to be accepted by all of us. We don't see the boosters as optional content, because the mechanic that the booster act like a splat for is a core mechanic of the game.
Take your own advice. Just because you do not see the cards as an optional part of the game doesn't make it so no matter how many time you say it isn't optional. Just because you want everyone to believe that the game can not be run without the boosters at this point does not make it true. The game can be run without the booster cards no matter how many times you try to convince people otherwise.
In this case, the nature of "optional" is quantified by "us" (us being people who share my opinion). The reason it is quantified by us is because the topic of this thread is my consumer feedback to WotC. If you consider "optional" to mean "you can choose to buy it or not," more power to you. But an optional CCG element, in the sense that it is optional to purchase the booster packs, is not going to change my consumer feedback or cause me to purchase the game. Only CCG material that distributes optional and self contained mechanics, in the sense that the mechanical system that governs the use of the cards released in a CCG format does not exist, and does not need to exist, in the game without the purchase of the booster cards, will not cause me to stop purchasing a game. So yes, my statement that the boosters are not optional content, in the sense I have quantified, is true. Whether or not that is how you want to define optional in relation to the booster packs is irrelevant to my consumer feedback or purchasing habits.
The game will rise or fall on its own merits no matter what. If it fails you can go scream from the rooftops on how right you were and if it succeeds I will be happy because it will be around for a while with more products.
Not quite. The game will rise or "fall" on its own merits. However, consumer feedback will influence WotC's perception of why it has "failed," and thus influence WotC's decision in the future if it "fails." That is the only goal of my thread. If WotC wants to tap into the market share represented by people of my opinion, they should keep my opinion in mind. That is all...
In this case, the nature of "optional" is quantified by "us" (us being people who share my opinion). The reason it is quantified by us is because the topic of this thread is my consumer feedback to WotC. If you consider "optional" to mean "you can choose to buy it or not," more power to you. But an optional CCG element, in the sense that it is optional to purchase the booster packs, is not going to change my consumer feedback or cause me to purchase the game. Only CCG material that distributes optional and self contained mechanics, in the sense that the mechanical system that governs the use of the cards released in a CCG format does not exist, and does not need to exist, in the game without the purchase of the booster cards, will not cause me to stop purchasing a game. So yes, my statement that the boosters are not optional content, in the sense I have quantified, is true. Whether or not that is how you want to define optional in relation to the booster packs is irrelevant to my consumer feedback or purchasing habits.
Fine. Define it however you want in your thread. Put whatever spin on it to get your point across. That's what everyone does anyways, including WotC, right?
Not quite. The game will rise or "fall" on its own merits. However, consumer feedback will influence WotC's perception of why it has "failed," and thus influence WotC's decision in the future if it "fails." That is the only goal of my thread. If WotC wants to tap into the market share represented by people of my opinion, they should keep my opinion in mind. That is all...
Or it could just fail because there was no interest in Gamma World. I doubt you are the target for this game. Many fans of Gamma World will get the game. Will they all? Most likely not. But for those that do not, in all likelihood others will be gained for many reasons, including that card element. Will it be enough? Only time will tell.
You want to make it out like the cards are so important that the game can not be run without the boosters and I think that is false information. The cards are only one aspect of the game, a visual cue for some mechanics and not the sole focus as in a game like Magic. It's fine that you do not like that idea and will not be buying. Some like the idea, some do not care, some will be drawn to the concept, some don't like Gamma World and some, like you, do not like the idea of booster cards. Just as it always is in that not all aspects appeal to everyone in an RPG. Now we just need to see how it does.
Wise decision indeed! Hopefully you haven't spent a cent on D&D 4E? They still make new books forchristsake! When 4E is complete product (i.e. when 5E comes out) that's when we buy it! We ain't some fools buying incomplete products, mind you!
GODDAMIT WotFC fix your fracking server farm!
Are you seriously trying to say that buying COMPLETE books is in any way the same thing as buying a CCG? WTF? dude, get a grip.
Cyber-Dave; thank you for trying to explain in much better terms than I obviously was my point.
CCG? What CCG are you talking about? Boxed set with some random and optional elements is called tabletop RPG (TRPG for short ;)) And CCG for your reference is the competetive game of random cards.
So stop getting off topic, man. It won't help you a bit.
Wise decision indeed! Hopefully you haven't spent a cent on D&D 4E? They still make new books forchristsake! When 4E is complete product (i.e. when 5E comes out) that's when we buy it! We ain't some fools buying incomplete products, mind you!
GODDAMIT WotFC fix your fracking server farm!
Are you seriously trying to say that buying COMPLETE books is in any way the same thing as buying a CCG? WTF? dude, get a grip.
Cyber-Dave; thank you for trying to explain in much better terms than I obviously was my point.
CCG? What CCG are you talking about? Boxed set with some random and optional elements is called tabletop RPG (TRPG for short ;)) And CCG for your reference is the competetive game of random cards.
So stop getting off topic, man. It won't help you a bit.
Nice distinction without difference you just performed there.That won't help you one bit...
In this case, the nature of "optional" is quantified by "us" (us being people who share my opinion). The reason it is quantified by us is because the topic of this thread is my consumer feedback to WotC. If you consider "optional" to mean "you can choose to buy it or not," more power to you. But an optional CCG element, in the sense that it is optional to purchase the booster packs, is not going to change my consumer feedback or cause me to purchase the game. Only CCG material that distributes optional and self contained mechanics, in the sense that the mechanical system that governs the use of the cards released in a CCG format does not exist, and does not need to exist, in the game without the purchase of the booster cards, will not cause me to stop purchasing a game. So yes, my statement that the boosters are not optional content, in the sense I have quantified, is true. Whether or not that is how you want to define optional in relation to the booster packs is irrelevant to my consumer feedback or purchasing habits.
Fine. Define it however you want in your thread. Put whatever spin on it to get your point across. That's what everyone does anyways, including WotC, right?Not quite. The game will rise or "fall" on its own merits. However, consumer feedback will influence WotC's perception of why it has "failed," and thus influence WotC's decision in the future if it "fails." That is the only goal of my thread. If WotC wants to tap into the market share represented by people of my opinion, they should keep my opinion in mind. That is all...
Or it could just fail because there was no interest in Gamma World. I doubt you are the target for this game. Many fans of Gamma World will get the game. Will they all? Most likely not. But for those that do not, in all likelihood others will be gained for many reasons, including that card element. Will it be enough? Only time will tell.
You want to make it out like the cards are so important that the game can not be run without the boosters and I think that is false information. The cards are only one aspect of the game, a visual cue for some mechanics and not the sole focus as in a game like Magic. It's fine that you do not like that idea and will not be buying. Some like the idea, some do not care, some will be drawn to the concept, some don't like Gamma World and some, like you, do not like the idea of booster cards. Just as it always is in that not all aspects appeal to everyone in an RPG. Now we just need to see how it does.
And yet, evidence from WotC's behavior shows that customer feedback does have an influence on future products. Case and point, the Essentials line. It seems to me that this attempt to quell consumer feedback is really just the fear that WotC might listen...
Wise decision indeed! Hopefully you haven't spent a cent on D&D 4E? They still make new books forchristsake! When 4E is complete product (i.e. when 5E comes out) that's when we buy it! We ain't some fools buying incomplete products, mind you!
GODDAMIT WotFC fix your fracking server farm!
Are you seriously trying to say that buying COMPLETE books is in any way the same thing as buying a CCG? WTF? dude, get a grip.
Cyber-Dave; thank you for trying to explain in much better terms than I obviously was my point.
CCG? What CCG are you talking about? Boxed set with some random and optional elements is called tabletop RPG (TRPG for short ;)) And CCG for your reference is the competetive game of random cards.
So stop getting off topic, man. It won't help you a bit.
Nice distinction without difference you just performed there.That won't help you one bit...
Glad you like it. Help me? It's was for your help guys. Hopefully you now understand that not every game that has boosters is the dreaded CCG.
Glad you like it. Help me? It's was for your help guys. Hopefully you now understand that not every game that has boosters is the dreaded CCG.
Actually, making use of a distinction without difference won't really help much of anyone. Someone intelligent enough to notice that it is a distinction without difference will be helped no more than they are helped when someone says, "that is not green! It is a mix of blue and yellow." Someone not intelligent enough to notice that it is a distinction without difference will be inoculated by viral ignorance. No one benefits either way.
A collectible card game is a game, that makes use of cards, which are collectible. The dictionary I have in front of me says that collectible means "worth collecting," or "sought after by collectors." Collectible card games are artificially made collectible via a particular model of marketing. That model of marketing specifically makes use of randomized booster packs filled with cards that have varying levels of print releases. This makes the cards collectible, because people who desire a complete set of cards must put quite a bit of effort into getting their hands on the cards with limited production runs, which thus makes the cards "sought after by collectors." They also tend to balance the cards along the lines of their levels of limited production, as this makes them "worth collecting." We have been informed that Gamma World booster packs will be random, and will be produced with three levels of print release. Those three levels are called "common," "uncommon," and "rare." We have been informed that these cards will be balanced roughly along the lines of their level of "rarity." To claim that that is not "collectible" is ridiculous. And, considering that the game is a game that makes use of cards, to claim that the game does not have a card game element is likewise ridiculous.
For better or worse, Gamma World is a CCG, or at the very least contains a strong CCG element to it. It is also an RPG (or TTRPG/PnPRPG). The two facts are not mutually exclusive. And yes, it is an objective fact that Gamma World contains a CCG element to it (though it is entirly subjective as to whether that is a good or bad thing).
And yet, evidence from WotC's behavior shows that customer feedback does have an influence on future products. Case and point, the Essentials line. It seems to me that this attempt to quell consumer feedback is really just the fear that WotC might listen...
I never said they do not take feedback. Feel free to state your opinion, just don't be surprised with contrary views. Seems to me that you are more concerned that someone may say something which will quash your complaints and people will buy the game and the boosters, therefore ruining any chance you may get the game you want.
As I said, you want to make out like these cards are the central focus of the game and it can not be run properly without them. That majority of people playing will feel the need to have all the cards. That is not true. This is a role-playing gamer incorporating a card aspect. An aspect which can or can not be used at the players' choice. You are attributing a huge amount of need to this aspect in the game. An aspect which is one part of the game.
It is fine if you do not like this aspect, but this is bordering on an irrational fear of it.
This is fun.
Saying mutations are not a major part of Gamma World is like saying that powers are not a major part of D&D.
P.S. So long as people continue to try and claim that my complaints are invalid because Gamma World does not contain a CCG element, I am really not worried about people saying anything that will "quash" my complaints. I have yet to see a single person in this thread list a valid reason why people, who feel the way I do about CCG games, should not be bothered by this element in Gamma World, or should be willing to purchase that product. Distinctions without difference, of course, do not count as valid reasons.
P.P.S. Not wanting to spend upwards of 1,000 dollars on the equivalent content that I can currently buy for 40 dollars in the D&D brand line is not an irrational reason not to want CCG elements in my games.
Please tell me, how can someone choose not to use mutations in Gamma World? I am interested in hearing that one. It sounds like it will be good...
Saying mutations are not a major part of Gamma World is like saying that powers are not a major part of D&D.
The same way, using the D&D example, that people play D&D without having purchased the various power books. If all you buy are the basic game and the supplements, you can play the game with just those. You can play it with just the basic game. The boosters just add to that, nothing more. There will always be completists who feel they must have them all (hell I have just about every D&D 4E book except the two earlier campaign guides), but that is always the case. You want to make out like everyone will feel this need, which is just not the case. Maybe it is for you, which may be why you fear it, but it most certainly is not the case for a majority of people.
P.S. So long as people continue to try and claim that my complaints are invalid because Gamma World does not contain a CCG element, I am really not worried about people saying anything that will "quash" my complaints. I have yet to see a single person in this thread list a valid reason why people, who feel the way I do about CCG games, should not be bothered by this element in Gamma World, or should be willing to purchase that product. Distinctions without difference, of course, do not count as valid reasons.
I am not trying to convince you to buy any part of the game. Not my intention whatsoever here. My only intention is to show a counter point of view so that people can make an informed opinion.
P.P.S. Not wanting to spend upwards of 1,000 dollars on the equivalent content that I can currently buy for 40 dollars in the D&D brand line is not an irrational reason not to want CCG elements in my games.
A little exaggeration goes a long way.
Please tell me, how can someone choose not to use mutations in Gamma World? I am interested in hearing that one. It sounds like it will be good...
well I can not tell you that, I can tell you how to play gamma world the TRPG without useing even a little bit of the booster packs... I can even tell you how to do so with out any cards at all... now maybe in a few months when I own the sets I CAN tell you how to do so without the mutations...
1) (no booster packs) just buy the main box (maybe even another box or two) play just with the complete and playbele game within
2) (no cards at all) as above but add one more step, write out on a chart all of the cards fromt he set, I belive there are 40 of them each, so roll 1d4 and 1d10 whre the d4 is the tens and the d10 is the ones counting a 41 as a 1 and a 42 as a 2 ext (sense there is no 0). This one even gets better becuse you can add your own options to the chart, or even thing release in the dreaded boosters by just writeing them out...
PS: If WotC is listening... Keep up the good work I like new and imagnitive ways of doing things, and these cards look cool and intresting.
Please tell me, how can someone choose not to use mutations in Gamma World? I am interested in hearing that one. It sounds like it will be good...
Saying mutations are not a major part of Gamma World is like saying that powers are not a major part of D&D.
The same way, using the D&D example, that people play D&D without having purchased the various power books. If all you buy are the basic game and the supplements, you can play the game with just those. You can play it with just the basic game. The boosters just add to that, nothing more. There will always be completists who feel they must have them all (hell I have just about every D&D 4E book except the two earlier campaign guides), but that is always the case. You want to make out like everyone will feel this need, which is just not the case. Maybe it is for you, which may be why you fear it, but it most certainly is not the case for a majority of people.
I see. So, the answer is that you can't play without the mutations. You can choose to play with less options. And in this case, this is a far more fundamental choice than choosing not to buy a Power book. Because, if you have one person at your table who buys a power book everyone can make use of any rule in that book. If you choose not to buy a book, but someone like me plays at your table, you gain all the benefits of owning the book as well. Which is a good thing, because it fosters the attitude of cooperation in a cooperative roleplaying game. On the other hand, if you choose not to buy booster cards, and other people at your table do buy booster cards, you may not make use of any of their cards (because each player will have his own deck). Which means that in this case, the players who buy the booster packs, who buy many of the booster packs, are playing with a distinct advantage over those who are playing without them (at the same table). So, in that situation, your option becomes the option to have a less effective character. Gee. This sounds so optional!
P.P.S. Not wanting to spend upwards of 1,000 dollars on the equivalent content that I can currently buy for 40 dollars in the D&D brand line is not an irrational reason not to want CCG elements in my games.
A little exaggeration goes a long way.
Zero exaggeration. I have done the math in the past, and posted it on the boards. A booster costs 3.99$. Each booster has 8 cards in it. Each card is one single power. Psionic power has roughly 470 different powers in it (give or take). At 3.99$ per 8 powers you are paying 0.49875$ per power. For 470 powers that is 234.4125. But, that assumes non randomized distribution. When you add in a randomized distribution model you must multiply that number by X, where X is the number of times you will have to buy those 470 powers over and over again in order to get a copy of each of the different powers. After all, you have roughly 470 different powers in a purchase of a power book. Now, I know I have often bought more than 4 packs of minis trying to get a single mini I wanted. So lets substitute the number 4 for X. In that case you have just paid 937.65$ for a the same amount of different powers as you gain in a power book for 29.95$. That means that 40$ worth of such powers would cost 1252.28$. This of course only leaves you with the powers in the power book, for that price, and none of its fluff, feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, items, or the like (though it does give you the powers from the paragon paths and epic destinies). Like I said, upwards of 1,000 dollars for content I can currently buy for 40 dollars. Indeed, if someone gets really unlucky and has to buy the cards 10 times over in order to get a copy of all the content (this has happened to people with other collectible games before) than that price goes way up. An estimate of X = 4 is a very reasonable estimate.
Please tell me, how can someone choose not to use mutations in Gamma World? I am interested in hearing that one. It sounds like it will be good...
well I can not tell you that, I can tell you how to play gamma world the TRPG without useing even a little bit of the booster packs... I can even tell you how to do so with out any cards at all... now maybe in a few months when I own the sets I CAN tell you how to do so without the mutations...
1) (no booster packs) just buy the main box (maybe even another box or two) play just with the complete and playbele game within
So, it is like I told mouthmerc. The option is not to actually play without mutations, but rather to play with less options, and very likely less options and effectiveness than the other players at the table. How very optional that option is! Truly...
2) (no cards at all) as above but add one more step, write out on a chart all of the cards fromt he set, I belive there are 40 of them each, so roll 1d4 and 1d10 whre the d4 is the tens and the d10 is the ones counting a 41 as a 1 and a 42 as a 2 ext (sense there is no 0). This one even gets better becuse you can add your own options to the chart, or even thing release in the dreaded boosters by just writeing them out...
So lets see. Now you have broken the game (because the common, uncommon, and rare cards all become equally likely as mutations, despite the fact that the game is balanced along its rarities). Of course, to get all the options you still have to try and collect a complete set of cards. Unless you don't buy any cards, and only use the cards in the boxed set. In which case you haven't solved the problem of having less options. You have performed quite a bit of house ruling. And this is only usable if everyone at the table agrees to play without cards. Otherwise, this set of rules really won't integrate well, and the players who bought the cards will still have more options than you. Another great option!
PS: If WotC is listening... Keep up the good work I like new and imagnitive ways of doing things, and these cards look cool and intresting.
Indeed, WotC should listen. Such options are not considered acceptable options by players such as me. Such options will result in players such as me not purchasing their products.
Please tell me, how can someone choose not to use mutations in Gamma World? I am interested in hearing that one. It sounds like it will be good...
well I can not tell you that, I can tell you how to play gamma world the TRPG without useing even a little bit of the booster packs... I can even tell you how to do so with out any cards at all... now maybe in a few months when I own the sets I CAN tell you how to do so without the mutations...
1) (no booster packs) just buy the main box (maybe even another box or two) play just with the complete and playbele game within
So, it is like I told mouthmerc. The option is not to actually play without mutations, but rather to play with less options, and very likely less options and effectiveness than the other players at the table. How very optional that option is! Truly...
that is a problem with your table not wotc... if randy has a PDF of Divine power (real example by the way not even changeing the names to protect the bastard) and I don't, and he doesn't let me share the book I can't make a favored soul...
If I buy boosters, I will let other players use them... why wouldn't I?
2) (no cards at all) as above but add one more step, write out on a chart all of the cards fromt he set, I belive there are 40 of them each, so roll 1d4 and 1d10 whre the d4 is the tens and the d10 is the ones counting a 41 as a 1 and a 42 as a 2 ext (sense there is no 0). This one even gets better becuse you can add your own options to the chart, or even thing release in the dreaded boosters by just writeing them out...
So lets see. Now you have broken the game (because the common, uncommon, and rare cards all become equally likely as mutations, despite the fact that the game is balanced along its rarities). Of course, to get all the options you still have to try and collect a complete set of cards. Unless you don't buy any cards, and only use the cards in the boxed set. In which case you haven't solved the problem of having less options. You have performed quite a bit of house ruling. And this is only usable if everyone at the table agrees to play without cards. Otherwise, this set of rules really won't integrate well, and the players who bought the cards will still have more options than you. Another great option!
I made a chart instead of cards... not alot of house ruleing (just changeing the randomizer) infact again no one has said rare was mroe powerful except you... inless you can show me a qoute I missed??
PS: If WotC is listening... Keep up the good work I like new and imagnitive ways of doing things, and these cards look cool and intresting.
Indeed, WotC should listen. Such options are not considered acceptable options by players such as me. Such options will result in players such as me not purchasing their products.
Sorry but many more people like it in this thread, if this thread is any way (witch I doubt it is) showign the trend most people eaither like it or don't care..
The game Munchkin uses cards that are distributed in non-random expansions. You can buy each box in the "series" of a theme, and your game is complete. If gamma world had taken this approach it wouldn't be invoking the ire of being a CCG.
um... so your only problem is the highly random element that should not be pick and chosen, is to random and can't be picked and chosen...
come on... the intent was so people don't just take the best cards only... will some people do so anyway YES... but that doesn't mean the whole idea doesn't work...
they do not mean to make it, nor are they advertiseing it as a CCG, but you guys fear you or other fans will make it a CCG becuse it CAN be made into one...
If I buy boosters, I will let other players use them... why wouldn't I?
How exactly do you accomplish this? The only way I can see this happening is as follows.
1) It's time to pick new mutations.
2) You draw first. You have to be first if you're going to have a chance of drawing the card you are going to lend to others. You also have to be first so your can search through your deck for that card if you don't draw it (then shuffle again presumably).
3) The player who wants to borrow the card then shuffles the borrowed card into his deck.
4) That player draws his mutation.
5) If that mutation is the one you loaned him, it stays out on the table. If he doesn't draw the mutation you loaned him, he then must search his deck for the card you loaned him so you can either have it out to use (if you drew it on your turn) or so you can put it back into your deck and shuffle it (again). He must then also shuffle his deck because he searched through it for the card you loaned him.
All that assumes that only one other player is borrowing the card, and the process is so tedious that I almost passed out from boredom while typing it. Unless you scan and print copies of cards, there is no good way to loan them to other players.
that is a problem with your table not wotc... if randy has a PDF of Divine power (real example by the way not even changeing the names to protect the bastard) and I don't, and he doesn't let me share the book I can't make a favored soul...
If I buy boosters, I will let other players use them... why wouldn't I?
No, it is a problem with the distribution model. Books are made to be shared. Only one player can use a player deck at a time. You wouldn't share cards, because the rules give you a fixed ratio of common, uncommon, and rare cards that must be in your deck, and because only you may draw from your player deck, and because any cards you loan to a friend are cards you will have no chance of drawing yourself. If I want to use a power from Divine Power, and Joe wants to use the same power, we both can, even if we only own one book between us. If I want to use my Mutation X card, and Joe wants to use my card as well, we can not both make use of the same card. Since you don't get to choose what card you want, but instead pick it from a shuffled deck, it is in your best interest never to lend out your cards and always to put as many of your good cards in your deck as possible.
I made a chart instead of cards... not alot of house ruleing (just changeing the randomizer) infact again no one has said rare was mroe powerful except you... inless you can show me a qoute I missed??
You made a chart that did not take any of the rules of the game into account, did not factor rarity, doesn't solve the problem of the dearth of options created by not engaging in the CCG collectibllity of the game, or the problems created by playing at a table where some people have put a lot more money into their player decks than other players. Developers have stated that the more rare cards will be more powerful. If you don't believe me, that is perfectly fine. It still isn't going to convince me to buy this game. Your "option" was not a real option.
Sorry but many more people like it in this thread, if this thread is any way (witch I doubt it is) showign the trend most people eaither like it or don't care..
Oh really? I just went through the thread and counted how many people explicitly stated "I like this idea" and how many explicitly stated "I really don't like this idea." Four people said they like the idea. Nine said they don't. A lot of people defended one position or the other without explicitly stating their preference (so I could not group them either way). If we count how many people explicitly stated they are willing to buy the product or not the numbers change slightly. Then we get eight people who say they will buy Gamma World anyway, and six who say they won't. So, there are not "many more people who like it in this thread." There are actually more people explicitly saying they don't like it then those that do, despite the fact that more people are also willing to buy the game anyway. There are still quite a few people who say they won't be buying the game in this thread. So, if we treat this thread as a biopsy of the player base (and I really don't think we should either) then Gamma World is in big trouble...
I see. So, the answer is that you can't play without the mutations. You can choose to play with less options. And in this case, this is a far more fundamental choice than choosing not to buy a Power book. Because, if you have one person at your table who buys a power book everyone can make use of any rule in that book. If you choose not to buy a book, but someone like me plays at your table, you gain all the benefits of owning the book as well. Which is a good thing, because it fosters the attitude of cooperation in a cooperative roleplaying game. On the other hand, if you choose not to buy booster cards, and other people at your table do buy booster cards, you may not make use of any of their cards (because each player will have his own deck). Which means that in this case, the players who buy the booster packs, who buy many of the booster packs, are playing with a distinct advantage over those who are playing without them (at the same table). So, in that situation, your option becomes the option to have a less effective character. Gee. This sounds so optional!
Wow, you would have me believe this is how things work and this is why the cards wouldn't work? Seriously? I'd say something but GM already said it as this absolutely no sense. Buying boosters doesn't automatically entitle you their use, just as buying a power book doesn't automatically entitle you to its use. And you can not use either if neither is purchased. And in both cases the game can be played without either.
Zero exaggeration. I have done the math in the past, and posted it on the boards. A booster costs 3.99$. Each booster has 8 cards in it. Each card is one single power. Psionic power has roughly 470 different powers in it (give or take). At 3.99$ per 8 powers you are paying 0.49875$ per power. For 470 powers that is 234.4125. But, that assumes non randomized distribution. When you add in a randomized distribution model you must multiply that number by X, where X is the number of times you will have to buy those 470 powers over and over again in order to get a copy of each of the different powers. After all, you have roughly 470 different powers in a purchase of a power book. Now, I know I have often bought more than 4 packs of minis trying to get a single mini I wanted. So lets substitute the number 4 for X. In that case you have just paid 937.65$ for a the same amount of different powers as you gain in a power book for 29.95$. That means that 40$ worth of such powers would cost 1252.28$. This of course only leaves you with the powers in the power book, for that price, and none of its fluff, feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, items, or the like (though it does give you the powers from the paragon paths and epic destinies). Like I said, upwards of 1,000 dollars for content I can currently buy for 40 dollars. Indeed, if someone gets really unlucky and has to buy the cards 10 times over in order to get a copy of all the content (this has happened to people with other collectible games before) than that price goes way up. An estimate of X = 4 is a very reasonable estimate.
Okay, let's say we use your numbers as they are. There are only 120 different cards that are available in the boosters so your $1200 estimate just dropped to $300. So, yes, an exaggeration. And this is only in the case of that completist who must have every card which is apparently every person playing. Like I said, you are attributing way too much value on these cards, but it does seem to help make your point, though, eh?
Wow, you would have me believe this is how things work and this is why the cards wouldn't work? Seriously? I'd say something but GM already said it as this absolutely no sense. Buying boosters doesn't automatically entitle you their use, just as buying a power book doesn't automatically entitle you to its use. And you can not use either if neither is purchased. And in both cases the game can be played without either.
Oh. Right. The good old "you can play in a game that bans boosters completely, and just make do with much fewer options!" You are right. I could. But that cuts down on the number of groups I can play Gamma World with. It is hard enough finding groups to game with. This just makes it harder, because I would only be willing to play with people who ban the use of boosters outright. Which still leaves Gamma World as a very unappealing option. So we either have "be less effective and have less options than everyone else at the table," "play a game with very few real options, and go through the effort of finding a group willing to ban the game's splat material completely," or "buy booster packs." Great options. Really. I will take option d) "don't buy the game."
Zero exaggeration. I have done the math in the past, and posted it on the boards. A booster costs 3.99$. Each booster has 8 cards in it. Each card is one single power. Psionic power has roughly 470 different powers in it (give or take). At 3.99$ per 8 powers you are paying 0.49875$ per power. For 470 powers that is 234.4125. But, that assumes non randomized distribution. When you add in a randomized distribution model you must multiply that number by X, where X is the number of times you will have to buy those 470 powers over and over again in order to get a copy of each of the different powers. After all, you have roughly 470 different powers in a purchase of a power book. Now, I know I have often bought more than 4 packs of minis trying to get a single mini I wanted. So lets substitute the number 4 for X. In that case you have just paid 937.65$ for a the same amount of different powers as you gain in a power book for 29.95$. That means that 40$ worth of such powers would cost 1252.28$. This of course only leaves you with the powers in the power book, for that price, and none of its fluff, feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, items, or the like (though it does give you the powers from the paragon paths and epic destinies). Like I said, upwards of 1,000 dollars for content I can currently buy for 40 dollars. Indeed, if someone gets really unlucky and has to buy the cards 10 times over in order to get a copy of all the content (this has happened to people with other collectible games before) than that price goes way up. An estimate of X = 4 is a very reasonable estimate.
Okay, let's say we use your numbers as they are. There are only 120 different cards that are available in the boosters so your $1200 estimate just dropped to $300. So, yes, an exaggeration. And this is only in the case of that completist who must have every card which is apparently every person playing. Like I said, you are attributing way too much value on these cards, but it does seem to help make your point, though, eh?
I like how you skip out on the fact that that 300$ would only cost you 9.58$ in book/pamphlet form. I like how you forget to mention that it does not change the terms of what I said, as my point was to show how inflated the price of a D&D splat book would be if it were released via this distribution model (and I think I have made that objectively evident). And I like how you try and pretend that if you are not a completist you somehow get more value for your dollar. You don't. Whatever you spend on the Gamma World cards, you will always have spent a faction of that money buying the equivalent content released in a non-collectible and randomized format. I like how you pretend that completists are not a major source of the market share for games such as this.
I am not attributing way too much value to anything. It would seem that trying to attribute way too little value is your tactic for trying to make your point, though.
Oh. Right. The good old "you can play in a game that bans boosters completely, and just make do with much fewer options!" You are right. I could. But that cuts down on the number of groups I can play Gamma World with. It is hard enough finding groups to game with. This just makes it harder, because I would only be willing to play with people who ban the use of boosters outright. Which still leaves Gamma World as a very unappealing option. So we either have "be less effective and have less options than everyone else at the table," "play a game with very few real options, and go through the effort of finding a group willing to ban the game's splat material completely," or "buy booster packs." Great options. Really. I will take option d) "don't buy the game."
So now there's a Gamma World game on every corner and this is going to reduce your chance to play since you will be at a disadvantage to the completist who got all the cards? I'm beginning to feel like I'm talking to Will or Max. Having not played I can not definitively state how much fun it would be to play in a game where someone had all the cards and you did not. Neither can you. You can not prove one way or another that the game is any better or worse with or without the booster cards. All you can say is that you are against the cards. I have to imagine, though, that there are people play actual CCGs like Magic that do not have every card or even most cards and still enjoy the game. I can't see it not being true here to.
I like how you skip out on the fact that that 300$ would only cost you 9.58$ in book/pamphlet form. I like how you forget to mention that it does not change the terms of what I said, as my point was to show how inflated the price of a D&D splat book would be if it were released via this distribution model (and I think I have made that objectively evident). And I like how you try and pretend that if you are not a completist you somehow get more value for your dollar. You don't. Whatever you spend on the Gamma World cards, you will always have spent a faction of that money buying the equivalent content released in a non-collectible and randomized format. I like how you pretend that completists are not a major source of the market share for games such as this.
Yes it is an inflated price for an alternate format if you compare it to a book. It only becomes an issue for those that want the entire set, something you seem to imply is everyone. Especially when you consider it is only one aspect of the game.
I am not attributing way too much value to anything. It would seem that trying to attribute way too little value is your tactic for trying to make your point, though.
Way to turn it back on me. Sorry, I just do not see them being as popular as cards in a dedicated CCG. Gamma World is a hybrid model that, while popular, will not have the impact of a CCG like Magic.
So now there's a Gamma World game on every corner and this is going to reduce your chance to play since you will be at a disadvantage to the completist who got all the cards? I'm beginning to feel like I'm talking to Will or Max. Having not played I can not definitively state how much fun it would be to play in a game where someone had all the cards and you did not. Neither can you. You can not prove one way or another that the game is any better or worse with or without the booster cards. All you can say is that you are against the cards. I have to imagine, though, that there are people play actual CCGs like Magic that do not have every card or even most cards and still enjoy the game. I can't see it not being true here to.
Um, honest people who play magic will tell you that people who collect massive amounts of cards have far more powerful decks to play with. I think honest people who play any CCG will tell you that, actually. I see no reason to believe it will be any different here, considering that the devs have already informed us that all the components that create this imbalance will be present in Gamma World. Now, I can not say that this imbalance will make the game objectively better or worse. That is a subjective value judgement. But, seeing as I really hate great imbalance between different players at an RPG table, and one of my favorite things about 4e is how balanced it is (for the most part), the idea of introducing an imbalance into 4e's mechanics already turns me off Gamma World. The idea of introducing an imbalance into 4e's mechanics along the lines of the player's real life income and surplus cash ensures that I won't purchase the product.
I like how you skip out on the fact that that 300$ would only cost you 9.58$ in book/pamphlet form. I like how you forget to mention that it does not change the terms of what I said, as my point was to show how inflated the price of a D&D splat book would be if it were released via this distribution model (and I think I have made that objectively evident). And I like how you try and pretend that if you are not a completist you somehow get more value for your dollar. You don't. Whatever you spend on the Gamma World cards, you will always have spent a faction of that money buying the equivalent content released in a non-collectible and randomized format. I like how you pretend that completists are not a major source of the market share for games such as this.
Yes it is an inflated price for an alternate format if you compare it to a book. It only becomes an issue for those that want the entire set, something you seem to imply is everyone. Especially when you consider it is only one aspect of the game.
No, it should be an issue for anyone that considers what they are getting for their dollar value. It doesn't matter if you try and collect the whole set, or only buy a few packs of cards. Had that material been distributed to you in a different format you would have paid far less for it.
I am not attributing way too much value to anything. It would seem that trying to attribute way too little value is your tactic for trying to make your point, though.
Way to turn it back on me. Sorry, I just do not see them being as popular as cards in a dedicated CCG. Gamma World is a hybrid model that, while popular, will not have the impact of a CCG like Magic.
So don't see it. The cards don't need to be as popular as cards in a dedicated CCG. Within the context of Gamma World, the cards will create a disparity just like they do in every other CCG that exists (no matter how popular it is or isn't). That disparity is an intrinsic part of the CCG marketing model. It is what helps to make the cards collectible. And it is created via the exact same elements that we have already been told, by the developers, will be present in Gamma World.
Um, honest people who play magic will tell you that people who collect massive amounts of cards have far more powerful decks to play with. I think honest people who play any CCG will tell you that, actually. I see no reason to believe it will be any different here, considering that the devs have already informed us that all the components that create this imbalance will be present in Gamma World. Now, I can not say that this imbalance will make the game objectively better or worse. That is a subjective value judgement. But, seeing as I really hate great imbalance between different players at an RPG table, and one of my favorite things about 4e is how balanced it is (for the most part), the idea of introducing an imbalance into 4e's mechanics already turns me off Gamma World. The idea of introducing an imbalance into 4e's mechanics along the lines of the player's real life income and surplus cash ensures that I won't purchase the product.
I never said anything about the power of a deck. I spoke to the fact that I'm sure there are people who play CCGs with what would be considered inferior decks and they still enjoy the game. You would have us believe that it is worse by your opinion. I'm not buying it and I want to make sure others can make an informed opinion.
No, it should be an issue for anyone that considers what they are getting for their dollar value. It doesn't matter if you try and collect the whole set, or only buy a few packs of cards. Had that material been distributed to you in a different format you would have paid far less for it.
Who are you to determine the value here for everyone else? It is clear that it is not a valuable purchase for you, but what if I think it is? What if I or others think 8 cards for $4 is a good purchase instead of getting them in a book which is not the card format? If the cards are such a bad idea then they will fail on their own merits and we won't see a second batch of 120 random mutations come out. There may be many, though, that like the idea of spending $4 to spice up that night's Gamma World game.
So don't see it. The cards don't need to be as popular as cards in a dedicated CCG. Within the context of Gamma World, the cards will create a disparity just like they do in every other CCG that exists (no matter how popular it is or isn't). That disparity is an intrinsic part of the CCG marketing model. It is what helps to make the cards collectible. And it is created via the exact same elements that we have already been told, by the developers, will be present in Gamma World.
I don't see it. This only becomes an issue if the cards are used and the game is successful on the scale of Magic, otherwise, I think for most they will be nothing but a novelty.
I'm repeating myself, so I will leave you to your thread and hope others read my counterpoint. It was never my intention to change your mind. Have fun. I did.
The game Munchkin uses cards that are distributed in non-random expansions. You can buy each box in the "series" of a theme, and your game is complete. If gamma world had taken this approach it wouldn't be invoking the ire of being a CCG.
um... so your only problem is the highly random element that should not be pick and chosen, is to random and can't be picked and chosen...
come on... the intent was so people don't just take the best cards only... will some people do so anyway YES... but that doesn't mean the whole idea doesn't work...
they do not mean to make it, nor are they advertiseing it as a CCG, but you guys fear you or other fans will make it a CCG becuse it CAN be made into one...
Have you never played Munchkin? It's a fun game and definately worth a laugh. In it there are two centralized decks of "Doors" (like dungeon tiles in the new Ravenloft game) and "Treasures". When you buy expansions, you shuffle those cards into the centralized decks, giving you the chance to encounter the new cards. Just because you bought the expansion that introduces the ranger class means any one player draws the ranger card that game. You'll still have randomness, barring you don't cheat and remove cards you don't like.
Using the Munchkin centralized deck approach would bring Gamma World closer to DnD's shared material available, all players on the same page in terms of options, dynamic.
I'm talking about the garbage that they are going to sell called gamma world. Where have you been? No amount of denying its a CCG will change the fact. No amount of changing the meaning of what I say will change that.
Stand alone game, sold incomplete, really pathetic that so many of you ****es are giving it props. Like I said three days ago, this is like buying monopoly w/o getting the cards that are a part of that game.
Your debate technique is flawless and has overwhelmed my counterpoint. You've convinced me...
The game Munchkin uses cards that are distributed in non-random expansions. You can buy each box in the "series" of a theme, and your game is complete. If gamma world had taken this approach it wouldn't be invoking the ire of being a CCG.
um... so your only problem is the highly random element that should not be pick and chosen, is to random and can't be picked and chosen...
come on... the intent was so people don't just take the best cards only... will some people do so anyway YES... but that doesn't mean the whole idea doesn't work...
they do not mean to make it, nor are they advertiseing it as a CCG, but you guys fear you or other fans will make it a CCG becuse it CAN be made into one...
Have you never played Munchkin? It's a fun game and definately worth a laugh. In it there are two centralized decks of "Doors" (like dungeon tiles in the new Ravenloft game) and "Treasures". When you buy expansions, you shuffle those cards into the centralized decks, giving you the chance to encounter the new cards. Just because you bought the expansion that introduces the ranger class means any one player draws the ranger card that game. You'll still have randomness, barring you don't cheat and remove cards you don't like.
Using the Munchkin centralized deck approach would bring Gamma World closer to DnD's shared material available, all players on the same page in terms of options, dynamic.
ok... so since the main rules (aka what you do when you buy just the box set) say everyone draws from one deck of mutations... just add any booster cards to the one deck... then everyone draws from the one deck...
mike has 2 booster packs
jim has none
dave has a whole box of boosters
randy has 2 whole sets of every card
larry has no boosters, but the basic box set
larry wants to run a game with no CCG elements, so he askes what cards the others have they want in the deck, he adjusts his deck by adding the ones wanted or subtracts...
everyone draws from one deck... ten second house rule and everyone is happy, randy got to be a completest, jim had to buy nothing, and larry is still running the game
Um, honest people who play magic will tell you that people who collect massive amounts of cards have far more powerful decks to play with. I think honest people who play any CCG will tell you that, actually. I see no reason to believe it will be any different here, considering that the devs have already informed us that all the components that create this imbalance will be present in Gamma World. Now, I can not say that this imbalance will make the game objectively better or worse. That is a subjective value judgement. But, seeing as I really hate great imbalance between different players at an RPG table, and one of my favorite things about 4e is how balanced it is (for the most part), the idea of introducing an imbalance into 4e's mechanics already turns me off Gamma World. The idea of introducing an imbalance into 4e's mechanics along the lines of the player's real life income and surplus cash ensures that I won't purchase the product.
1st of all gamma world is not balanced, at all it is random and takes alot of 4e balance out, if you love balance (I do too for the record, but this is something diffrent to break up my D&D) GW may not be for you anyway.
second again yugioh being my CCG of most experence I laugh at people who buy $1,000 decks...
I bought the basic 2 starter decks, and 1 pack of booster and put togather a deck that went into a real tournament and kick a bunch of butt with it. I had NO rare cards and NO Ultra rare cards in my deck at all and I beat a guy playing an entire deck of rare or higher (Incuding I think atleast 3 secret rares) my deck cost 9.99+9.99+3.99... his exodia set (five cards) cost him almost $200 and I beat him...
tell me again how this works...
There's nothing illegal about copying the rules. Only the copyrighted artistic presentation. Game rules are not subject to copyright - that's the law.
The only reason Magic cards are collectible is that there is a shared convention among players (who often play competitively against strangers or in organized play) that proxies are not allowed. Well, and to a certain extent they're pretty, with evocative flavor text (they've got a nice artistic presentation). That convention seems unlikely to hold when your playgroup is a small, static group of RPG friends.
ok... so since the main rules (aka what you do when you buy just the box set) say everyone draws from one deck of mutations... just add any booster cards to the one deck... then everyone draws from the one deck...
mike has 2 booster packs
jim has none
dave has a whole box of boosters
randy has 2 whole sets of every card
larry has no boosters, but the basic box set
larry wants to run a game with no CCG elements, so he askes what cards the others have they want in the deck, he adjusts his deck by adding the ones wanted or subtracts...
everyone draws from one deck... ten second house rule and everyone is happy, randy got to be a completest, jim had to buy nothing, and larry is still running the game
Nope. Keeping track of who owns what book and returning them at the end of the night is fairly easy. Cards make it more annoying.
More importantly I own every edition of GW and supplements. I like 4E and would love a GW using those basic rules. Due the random cards I can't collect the entire game for a fixed price.
Granted this isn't the only problem with getting me to be a customer. I want a generally serious GW. While GW has it's weird elements, the previous editions can run serious campaigns and the adventures seemed to be written with that in mind. They seem to be gearing this edition as a Beer and Pretzels game, a quick diversion from your regular game. That disappoints me. Not to say you can't run a serious game in the new GW but they don't seem to suggesting that.
ok... so since the main rules (aka what you do when you buy just the box set) say everyone draws from one deck of mutations... just add any booster cards to the one deck... then everyone draws from the one deck...
mike has 2 booster packs
jim has none
dave has a whole box of boosters
randy has 2 whole sets of every card
larry has no boosters, but the basic box set
larry wants to run a game with no CCG elements, so he askes what cards the others have they want in the deck, he adjusts his deck by adding the ones wanted or subtracts...
everyone draws from one deck... ten second house rule and everyone is happy, randy got to be a completest, jim had to buy nothing, and larry is still running the game
But giving everyone their own cards back from a single shuffled deck would be a major hassle.
If I were Larry, I would start out by saying that I was running the game with the cards in the basic set and that if anyone wants to add other cards, he can give me any cards he wishes and I would shuffle them in -- and keep them afterwards.
The only other workable alternative would be to use Randy's deck but revert to the basic cards whenever Randy doesn't show up.
More importantly I own every edition of GW and supplements. I like 4E and would love a GW using those basic rules. Due the random cards I can't collect the entire game for a fixed price.
I was starting to wonder if anyone else got that, thank you.
Granted this isn't the only problem with getting me to be a customer. I want a generally serious GW. While GW has it's weird elements, the previous editions can run serious campaigns.
Early GW was very silly and random, so it definitely had the less serious feel. You could go sillier or less silly, though. Several eds had a more serious take or, at least, better rules that could be used to run a serious game if you really wanted to. It generally eschewed anything remotely resembling realism, though, which made it less innately serious - and a lot more fun than Aftermath.
CCG? What CCG are you talking about? Boxed set with some random and optional elements is called tabletop RPG (TRPG for short ;)) And CCG for your reference is the competetive game of random cards.
So stop getting off topic, man. It won't help you a bit.
I'm talking about the garbage that they are going to sell called gamma world. Where have you been? No amount of denying its a CCG will change the fact. No amount of changing the meaning of what I say will change that.
Stand alone game, sold incomplete, really pathetic that so many of you ****es are giving it props. Like I said three days ago, this is like buying monopoly w/o getting the cards that are a part of that game.
I will have a new game which I can expand if I want with new and exciting stuff. You get incomplete game (dunno where you get it, some special Thundery_Dragonbany shop I guess). So you know what? You lose.
Sorry but many more people like it in this thread, if this thread is any way (witch I doubt it is) showign the trend most people eaither like it or don't care..
I have news for you... a lot of us reading agree with the OP and don't like it ..... but just prefer not to argue opinions on the internet.
I too will refuse to buy any WoTC product with a CCG element built into it. And if you were at the seminar, you would know that when asked "What about those players that will go out and buy all the cards to put together an overpowered deck?".... Bill's response was "We'd hope that players didn't do that".
So, it is a recognized problem to start with.
Oh damn I love this quote. Of course players are going to make the best deck possible. That is the nature of CCGs. What a buffoon.
I wouldn't go so far as calling anyone names. I just think that they are giving all the players (their customers) the benefit of the doubt.
I do agree that it will not likely be the case in a large percentage of players, however.
Oh damn I love this quote. Of course players are going to make the best deck possible. That is the nature of CCGs. What a buffoon.
I wouldn't go so far as calling anyone names. I just think that they are giving all the players (their customers) the benefit of the doubt.
I do agree that it will not likely be the case in a large percentage of players, however.
Don't worry, for every rational argument you make, Thunder_Dragonbane can make 50 more irrational arguments in which he calls someone a buffoon.
It's a good thing everything you need to play D&D 4E comes in one box. Especially miniatures. It's nice that you get all the miniatures you'll ever need in the same box with your PHB, DMG, and MM and there are no other products to ever buy.
Oh, well, we are convinced! WotC now has nothing to worry about. We will buy their products, even if they have a CCG element, with abandon. Oh, wait, no we wont. Your opinion is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we draw a line of difference between miniatures and splat rules. The fact of the matter is that we don't need to buy pages of the PHB, DMG, MM, and other products, randomly until we get the pages we need/want for our game. The fact is, no matter how many times you cry about the fact that we do not like, and some of us will not buy, RPGs with a CCG element, we still don't, and some of us still won't. Guess you are just going to have to get used to that...
P.S. WotC has lost some customers to the stronger miniature element that has entered into their RPG games. While I personally like that element, it is important to note that customers were lost to introduce it.
Seeing as your being delebritly dense today; I don't buy their minis either. Go figure. I buy plenty of minis, just not WotC minis.
Disagreeing with "they're making D&D into a cardgame it's going to be awful" speculation with little support is being dense?
The fact of the matter is that we draw a line of difference between miniatures and splat rules. The fact of the matter is that we don't need to buy pages of the PHB, DMG, MM, and other products, randomly until we get the pages we need/want for our game.
I have never bought a random pack of cheap plastic miniatures. I buy and paint leads. I guess I'm old-fashoined that way. But, I'd buy a bag of cheap platic miniatures - if I knew what I was getting and the price matched the fact they were just inch-high plastic toys.
But I have baught a pack of D&D minis and Star Wars minis here and there in my day.
The fact of the matter is that we draw a line of difference between miniatures and splat rules. The fact of the matter is that we don't need to buy pages of the PHB, DMG, MM, and other products, randomly until we get the pages we need/want for our game.
I have never bought a random pack of cheap plastic miniatures. I buy and paint leads. I guess I'm old-fashoined that way. But, I'd buy a bag of cheap platic miniatures - if I knew what I was getting and the price matched the fact they were just inch-high plastic toys.
I would so buy bags of orcs and undead if I could get appropriately sized mini's analagous to say, old army men.
I have never bought a random pack of cheap plastic miniatures. I buy and paint leads. I guess I'm old-fashoined that way. But, I'd buy a bag of cheap platic miniatures - if I knew what I was getting and the price matched the fact they were just inch-high plastic toys.
I used to be the same way... until I started running more public games... the damage to the paint and the minis itself got me into buying a crate of plastic ones.
They may not look as good but they are a lot sturdier.
You could always make your own molds of lead/plastic figures then duplicate them in plastic for your own use. To my understanding, as long as you don't sell them, there is nothing illegal going on there.
Eh that falls under the legal grey area known as "fair use". If a court found it to be fair use then it would be legal, but if they didn't think it was fair use then it is illegal. There (probably) isn't much case law on this specific area, so I'm not going to take a side on the legality of the issue. The more accurate statement is that if you aren't selling them, then there is almost no chance a company will waste any money from their legal budget pursuing the case.
You could always make your own molds of lead/plastic figures then duplicate them in plastic for your own use. To my understanding, as long as you don't sell them, there is nothing illegal going on there.
Eh that falls under the legal grey area known as "fair use". If a court found it to be fair use then it would be legal, but if they didn't think it was fair use then it is illegal. There (probably) isn't much case law on this specific area, so I'm not going to take a side on the legality of the issue. The more accurate statement is that if you aren't selling them, then there is almost no chance a company will waste any money from their legal budget pursuing the case.
And they'd be even less inclined to do so if you didn't distribute them (ie. kept them for personal use). Of course, there would likely be no way they'd find out about it if you kept them strictly for personal use.
Yea... If you want to play, the buy in, is a "booster pack"...No its not a CCG, really...
Some people will believe anything their told. I feel sorry for them. I really do.
It's organized play, baby. Do you always play at home using DCI Floor Rules?
Stop seeing proofs of your little conspiracy theory everywhere. It's not healthy.
The game Munchkin uses cards that are distributed in non-random expansions. You can buy each box in the "series" of a theme, and your game is complete. If gamma world had taken this approach it wouldn't be invoking the ire of being a CCG.
um... so your only problem is the highly random element that should not be pick and chosen, is to random and can't be picked and chosen...
come on... the intent was so people don't just take the best cards only... will some people do so anyway YES... but that doesn't mean the whole idea doesn't work...
they do not mean to make it, nor are they advertiseing it as a CCG, but you guys fear you or other fans will make it a CCG becuse it CAN be made into one...
New WotC article on Gamma World is up.
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
It comes right out and says it:
"The D&D Gamma World Game introduces an unusual element to Dungeons & Dragons games: collectible cards that represent your most powerful or unusual mutations and the items of advanced technology you possess."
Anyways, yea, my original letter stands.
From the game day document for the event
D&D Gamma World Game Day requires the following purchase to play.
1 Gamma World boxed set per table
2 Gamma World Booster packs per player
Organizers should ensure that enough product is available for DMs and players to purchase to support the event.
So the DM for each table needs to purchase the box set to run the release event and each player has to purchase two packs of the cards.
The card packs are 8 cards; 5 common, 2 uncommon, 1 rare.
It is actually more than 2 Gamma booster pack per table.
From the game day document for the eventD&D Gamma World Game Day requires the following purchase to play.
1 Gamma World boxed set per table
2 Gamma World Booster packs per player
Organizers should ensure that enough product is available for DMs and players to purchase to support the event.
So the DM for each table needs to purchase the box set to run the release event and each player has to purchase two packs of the cards.
The card packs are 8 cards; 5 common, 2 uncommon, 1 rare.
Weird. Red Box gameday didn't require to buy the Red Box.
Well. I'll buy it anyway, but no GW gameday in our club I guess. Pity.
Now that we know how Gamma World cards work (i.e. make the game more wacky and random), is there a valid reason to expect the same in Ravenloft?
Yes. WotC has a habit of using products to test the possibility of adding similar mechanics to future products. WotC has said that Ravenloft will include some sort of physical component to the game that is not present in regular D&D games. Ravenloft is going to be a stand alone "D&D based RPG ala Gamma World," and what makes Gamma World stand alone is a CCG aspect. The idea of the dark gifts granted by the mists is very similar to mutations, and we see how mutations turned out in Gamma World.
Which doesn't meant that Ravenloft will have a CCG aspect. We have no concrete evidence of that. But the circumstantial evidence has me worried...
Yes. WotC has a habit of using products to test the possibility of adding similar mechanics to future products. WotC has said that Ravenloft will include some sort of physical component to the game that is not present in regular D&D games. Ravenloft is going to be a stand alone "D&D based RPG ala Gamma World," and what makes Gamma World stand alone is a CCG aspect. The idea of the dark gifts granted by the mists is very similar to mutations, and we see how mutations turned out in Gamma World.
Which doesn't meant that Ravenloft will have a CCG aspect. We have no concrete evidence of that. But the circumstantial evidence has me worried...
I actually don't know what Ravenloft used to be like. Those "dark gifts" do sound like something that could be done through cards.
It seems to me if either of those products does even ok we will likely see some type of card element in D&D. This would not be good for the game at all.
You mean you wouldn't like it at all?
Çause I can't see how it's not good for the game.
@Snarls- look at what thay have done in essentials to bring back old school players, do you think those type of players would buy a rpg with a required ccg element. I would say no and that is why it would be bad for D&D.
I actually don't know what Ravenloft used to be like. Those "dark gifts" do sound like something that could be done through cards.
I have no problem with cards. Its randomized booster distribution of cards that turns me off. I really hope they don't try and push that bologna with Ravenloft. It will be a hard call for me to figure out what I like/hate more, Ravenloft or a CCG element in my RPG products. In the case of Gamma World, my hatred of CCG elements ended up winning out. It would suck for another potential buy to fall through due to this attempt to bring Magic marketing schemes into old TSR brands.
It's different when the uncertainty of acquiring cards to build a deck is a major part of the game, to begin with, as in M:tG, of course.
It's been clearly stated a number of times: the game functions perfectly well without additional cards. There's no law requiring you to buy the boosters, and WotC isn't reaching into your pocket to take the money out. To completely denounce a game just because the packaging says CCG, or to refuse new rules unless they're presented in a complete splatbook, is extremely narrow-minded. If you feel like you don't have enough self-control to refrain from buying every single card, then maybe GW really isn't for you. I will admit, there was a time in my life when I felt like I needed complete collections, and I was always comparing what I had to what my friends had. And then I graduated middle school.
At the risk of drawing the ire of everyone on this thread, I think there has been some overreaction here. I'm always amazed when I see the same types of people who freak out over new cell phones and computers pine for RPGs they played in the 90s. Is WotC supposed to just keep releasing 3.5 over and over again? You don't have to be scared of a little innovation, people. Why not, I don't know, play it first and see if you enjoy it? After all, these are games. They're supposed to be fun.
It's been clearly stated a number of times: the game functions perfectly well without additional cards. There's no law requiring you to buy the boosters, and WotC isn't reaching into your pocket to take the money out. To completely denounce a game just because the packaging says CCG, or to refuse new rules unless they're presented in a complete splatbook, is extremely narrow-minded. If you feel like you don't have enough self-control to refrain from buying every single card, then maybe GW really isn't for you. I will admit, there was a time in my life when I felt like I needed complete collections, and I was always comparing what I had to what my friends had. And then I graduated middle school.
And then there are those of us who have not only graduated middle school, but also packed a couple of university degrees under our belts. We tend to be self aware, and we know what we want and don't want. We don't feel the need to buy every product released. We don't feel the need to try something out just to learn that we don't like it, because we have tried these things before. The green eggs and ham, we gave them a taste. Guess what we learned? We don't like them in a box, or on a train, or in the rain. We don't need to try and eat them while playing an RPG just to learn we don't like them again. And guess what? We don't buy things we don't like. We also don't insinuate that people are childish because they happen to know what they like and don't like. At least, I don't. I would appreciate it if avoided doing so as well. Because, really, being willing to fleece your wallet to deck build, or being willing to play at a disadvantage because you don't deck build, being a completioninst, or being content with the purchase of a few smattering of products within a particular product product line, doesn't make you either a child or an adult, it doesn't make you mature or immature; on the other hand, insinuating that everyone who doesn't hold the same paradigm as you hasn't graduated middle school, well, that does earn one of the aforementioned terms. In case you didn't guess, the term it earns is not one of the flattering ones...
P.S. Your conflation of tastes in regards to D&D is erroneous. I happen to really hate 3.5e D&D. Not that there is anything objectively wrong with the edition, I just really don't like it. 2e and 4e D&D are the editions that really float my boat. I am also open to certain types of change. Despite disliking 3.5 edition I still own roughly 30-40 3e books. I gave it an honest try, because I didn't know enough about the game to make an educated decision until I did so. I also tried some of the 3.5 spin of games, some of which I really liked. Specifically, I own every d20 Modern book (it was a great system for its time), Monte Cook's World of Darkness, and all the Star Wars Saga books. And while a lot of people are approaching Essentials with apprehension, I am giving it an honest try as well (I have already preordered 2 essentials products), and it is slowly starting to win me over. Guess what? I still wrote the original post. Liking the latest edition of D&D, being willing to give things an honest try, doesn't automatically mean you will like any element they choose to try to introduce to the game in the future. I happen to be self aware enough to know that I really don't like CCG's, and won't play (or buy) an RPG that tries to introduce a CCG element into an RPG product line. Again, as noted above, that doesn't make me a child. It also doesn't make me uneducated. It makes me self aware.
At the risk of drawing the ire of everyone on this thread, I think there has been some overreaction here.
Right on cue.
To be honest, C-D, I don't take issue with very much you've said so far (which is why I didn't quote anything of yours in my OP). For the most part, you've couched your comments in terms of your personal preferences, which are absolutely valid. Styling your opposition as a "boycott" is a bit hyperbolic, but not everyone is going to like every single game.
What I do take issue with are comments (not all yours) that suggest that certain things are "bad," or "wrong," or "aren't what WotC should be doing." This is the narrow-mindedness I'm talking about. The idea that products of different types can't co-exist, the idea that all RPGs have to conform to a particular individual's preferences. To the extent that your opposition to GW stems from your general dislike of CCGs ("I really don't like CCGs, and won't play (or buy) an RPG that tries to introduce a CCG element"), I'd put you in that camp. But again, most of what you said has been based on your personal preferences. Which is fine.
But how do you know you won't like Gamma World? You've played CCGs, and you dislike CCGs, but this isn't a CCG. This is an RPG that incorporates randomness through cards. Yes, there are opportunities to purchase additional cards through booster packs, but that doesn't change the RPG chasis on which the game is built. So actually, no; you haven't played a game like this before. (And, if you recall, the protagonist in Green Eggs & Ham actually tries the titular dish and realizes that his blanket opposition to it was misguided.)
To continue the theme, my taste for eggs is a perfect parallel. I hate plain eggs, cooked any style. But I happen to love french toast. Now, if I applied your way of thinking about CCGs, I'd have to hate french toast, becuase I'd have to reject any food that incorporated eggs in any way. Well, it's a good thing I didn't, because I would have shut myself off from a number of foods that I happen to enjoy thoroughly. If you feel the need to take a stand here, to oppose CCGs so thoroughly that you aren't willing to even try GW, more power to you. But when things get windy up in your tower, I'll be down here enjoying my french toast.
P.S. Nobody called you uneducated. In fact, the point I was trying to make is that I'm self-aware as well. As in, capable of deciding whether I want boosters or whether I feel the need to buy them. Contrary to your opinions-stated-as-facts, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
I'm always amazed when I see the same types of people who freak out over new cell phones and computers pine for RPGs they played in the 90s.
Just for the record, the last two versions of Gamma World (Alternity and d20) were crap, this new version will be hard-pressed to do worse.
There's no law requiring you to buy the boosters, and WotC isn't reaching into your pocket to take the money out.
There's no law requiring you to get on-line and make a fool of yourself by belabouring the obvious, either.
It's been clearly stated a number of times: the game functions perfectly well without additional cards.
That's the claim, yes, and I'm willing to buy the initial game based on that claim. If it turns out to be not so good, though, that's it. OTOH, if you do want to give the game a fair shake and try playing it at, say, Game Day, guess what - you have to buy the boosters.
To completely denounce a game just because the packaging says CCG, or to refuse new rules unless they're presented in a complete splatbook, is extremely narrow-minded.
I don't denounce games for being CCG. I don't play CCGs, so I have no strong opinions about their relative merrits. RPGs aren't CCGs, though. For one thing, they're cooperative instead of competative. Game 'balance' matters even in a game as whacky as Gamma World where the balance exists only in the theoretical sense that everyone has the same chance to roll a good or humorously bad character. Distributing new rule options to players in blind, randomized forms that reward obsessive collecting isn't good for balance, or for the cooperative aspect of play. It's great for a competative CCG, of course, just not for an RPG. In an RPG, everyone needs the same access to the rules being used at the table. It's not the use of cards - which, if you read my prior posts, I've aplauded - but the 'collectable' aspect that's problematic. That's why complete decks would be just fine, but booster packs are unacceptable.
Game 'balance' matters even in a game as whacky as Gamma World where the balance exists only in the theoretical sense that everyone has the same chance to roll a good or humorously bad character. Distributing new rule options to players in blind, randomized forms that reward obsessive collecting isn't good for balance, or for the cooperative aspect of play. It's great for a competative CCG, of course, just not for an RPG. In an RPG, everyone needs the same access to the rules being used at the table. It's not the use of cards - which, if you read my prior posts, I've aplauded - but the 'collectable' aspect that's problematic. That's why complete decks would be just fine, but booster packs are unacceptable.
I agree with this on a general level, but I don't think it applies to GW.
1) I haven't seen anywhere that the uncommon and rare cards are inherently "better," as in they do more damage or have better effects. So I don't see how the randomized booster packs affect balance. They affect the number of options Player X may have compared to Player Y, but if Player X's options aren't inherently better, then there isn't a balance problem.
2) I think you're confusing "rules" and "options." The "rules" to Gamma World are contained in a book, which is included in the box. The cards themselves aren't "rules;" they're mutation and treasure "options" that players draw randomly throughout the course of the game. Everyone at a D&D table knows the "rules," but only those who have purchased certain products get the additional "options" contained therein. If I don't have Primal Power, I can't play a certain build of barbarian. Now, I can pay $30 to get access to that "option," but I also get powers for three other classes that I don't care about.
That last point is why I think GW booster packs are actually better than D&D splatbooks. Every card contained in a booster pack is useful in your game, because it can be used by any player. Even if you're trying to collect every card, you're probably going to spend less on boosters than you would on D&D splatbooks. The "______ Power" books alone cost $180. For that money, I can buy 45 GW booster packs (360 cards), which is probably more than I need to get every card in the set.
Styling your opposition as a "boycott" is a bit hyperbolic....What I do take issue with are comments (not all yours) that suggest that certain things are "bad," or "wrong," or "aren't what WotC should be doing."
If enough fans don't like this, then it is "bad" or "wrong," and it isn't "what WotC should be doing." That is a big if. But making that if a factual reality is what a boycott is all about. Which is why there is nothing hyperbolic about my statement that I will be boycotting this line. A hyperbole refers to the exaggeration of a kernel of truth, which creates a fiction, as a (usually considered to be a fairly poor) rhetorical tactic. I am truthfully engaging in a boycott. I love post-apocalyptic fiction games. When I heard they were releasing Gamma World I got very excited. I really wanted to purchase Gamma World. Then I heard about its CCG aspect. I will not be purchasing this game anymore. The reason I am not purchasing this game anymore is because I want to try and help make that if a reality. There is nothing hyperbolic about that.
This is the narrow-mindedness I'm talking about. The idea that products of different types can't co-exist, the idea that all RPGs have to conform to a particular individual's preferences. To the extent that your opposition to GW stems from your general dislike of CCGs ("I really don't like CCGs, and won't play (or buy) an RPG that tries to introduce a CCG element"), I'd put you in that camp. But again, most of what you said has been based on your personal preferences. Which is fine.
If our subjective taste leaves no room for a CCG aspect in the game we want to play, then there is nothing close-minded about being aware of that. There is a difference between being close-minded and not forcing yourself to engage in a distribution model you really don't enjoy. There is nothing reasonable about asking people to change their subjective tastes in the name of open-mindedness. Which means that a CCG and an RPG can co-exist in a single product line, but not in a product line WotC hopes to sell to someone of my tastes. At least, not in the form of Gamma World. I am not bothered by the fortune cards WotC is releasing for D&D, as they are a self contained and optional mechanic. No, the Gamma World boosters do not quality for that description. I have written why earlier in this thread.
But how do you know you won't like Gamma World? You've played CCGs, and you dislike CCGs, but this isn't a CCG. This is an RPG that incorporates randomness through cards. Yes, there are opportunities to purchase additional cards through booster packs, but that doesn't change the RPG chasis on which the game is built. So actually, no; you haven't played a game like this before. (And, if you recall, the protagonist in Green Eggs & Ham actually tries the titular dish and realizes that his blanket opposition to it was misguided.)
Yes, it is a CCG. It is not exclusively a CCG. But that does not change the fact that it contains a CCG element. I know what I like and what I don't. What I really don't like is buying randomized boosters. What I also really don't like is not being able to purchase a set number of products in order to own a complete product line. Both these dislikes apply to Gamma World. Which means I won't be purchasing Gamma World, because while I may really like some aspects of the game, I hate other aspects of the game enough for me to avoid purchasing the game as a result. I want to purchase Gamma World, I would probably enjoy it in terms of play at the table, but the surrounding experience of the game ruins it for me. As a result I will not be purchasing this game. And I know what Green Eggs & Ham was about. The point is that unlike the protagonist of Green Eggs & Ham, I am self aware enough to know that I am not being misguided. I know what I like and what I don't. I have played CCGs. I have been a hobby gamer for a long time. I know what experiences I can enjoy, and what experiences I can not.
To continue the theme, my taste for eggs is a perfect parallel. I hate plain eggs, cooked any style. But I happen to love french toast. Now, if I applied your way of thinking about CCGs, I'd have to hate french toast, becuase I'd have to reject any food that incorporated eggs in any way. Well, it's a good thing I didn't, because I would have shut myself off from a number of foods that I happen to enjoy thoroughly. If you feel the need to take a stand here, to oppose CCGs so thoroughly that you aren't willing to even try GW, more power to you. But when things get windy up in your tower, I'll be down here enjoying my french toast.
It is actually a perfect parallel. See, I am self aware enough to know not only that I hate eggs, but to know why I hate eggs. I don't like the texture. The flavor? That is fine. But the texture, in any form, bothers me. French toast? It is reasonable to assume that it might not have the texture. That is why I will try french toast. But if the egg is just thrown on top of small cubes of bread, then the content of egg outweighs the content of bread, and I will still get that texture of egg.
I know what it is about CCGs that bothers me. It is the inability to choose what I am buying when I buy it. It is the inflation of price I pay for equal amounts of content. It is the inability to buy a fixed number of products in order to buy my desired "complete set" of the game's rules. If the game had cards in it, that wouldn't bother me. The "flavor" of cards does not bother me. However, introducing cards through a randomly distributed booster model means that all the elements of a CCG that I really hate will still be present. That distribution model is the "texture" I hate. Again, I am self-aware enough to know that. I don't need to waste my money on Gamma World, supporting a distribution model I hate, just to relearn it. I am smarter than that.
P.S. Nobody called you uneducated. In fact, the point I was trying to make is that I'm self-aware as well. As in, capable of deciding whether I want boosters or whether I feel the need to buy them. Contrary to your opinions-stated-as-facts, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Except, that wasn't your expressed point at all. To point out that you are self-aware you need only point out that you really like CCG elements, and want them in your RPG. Or, in (what you claim is true in this thread in) your case, that you don't like CCG elements, but you really don't have an issue with playing in a game where your options are seriously constrained compared to the options of your peers due to your own subjective desires as they relate to the distribution of booster packs. You are self aware enough to know what you like and don't. Done. But you didn't do that. What you did is tried to tell us that we are childish for not being willing to purchase the game even though we hate CCG elements, and are self-aware enough to realize that the elements we hate are present in Gamma World. That is a very different point, and a fraudulent one.
I agree with this on a general level, but I don't think it applies to GW.
1) I haven't seen anywhere that the uncommon and rare cards are inherently "better," as in they do more damage or have better effects. So I don't see how the randomized booster packs affect balance. They affect the number of options Player X may have compared to Player Y, but if Player X's options aren't inherently better, then there isn't a balance problem.
Then you probably have not read the following paragraph published by WotC:
Using Cards
The D&D Gamma World Game introduces an unusual element to Dungeons & Dragons games: collectible cards that represent your most powerful or unusual mutations and the items of advanced technology you possess. These are known as Alpha Mutations and Omega Tech. You can play using only the s tarter cards that came in the game box, but a player can create a customized character by building his or her own Alpha Mutation and Omega Tech decks from booster packs. Likewise, a Game Master can also customize his or her own decks.
WotC has explicitly stated that some of the randomized booster cards will be more powerful than what a player would have if they do not buy randomized booster packs, because it is the collectible cards in which your most powerful mutations can be found.
2) I think you're confusing "rules" and "options." The "rules" to Gamma World are contained in a book, which is included in the box. The cards themselves aren't "rules;" they're mutation and treasure "options" that players draw randomly throughout the course of the game. Everyone at a D&D table knows the "rules," but only those who have purchased certain products get the additional "options" contained therein. If I don't have Primal Power, I can't play a certain build of barbarian. Now, I can pay $30 to get access to that "option," but I also get powers for three other classes that I don't care about.
I think you are confusing coexisting truths and mutually exclusive truths. The cards of Gamma World are options. They are also rules. In this case, the two statements are not mutually exclusive. Mutations and treasures are represented with rules. And here is the real kicker, the options found in the cards are more powerful then the options you would have otherwise, because those options are the most powerful options in the game.
That last point is why I think GW booster packs are actually better than D&D splatbooks. Every card contained in a booster pack is useful in your game, because it can be used by any player. Even if you're trying to collect every card, you're probably going to spend less on boosters than you would on D&D splatbooks. The "______ Power" books alone cost $180. For that money, I can buy 45 GW booster packs (360 cards), which is probably more than I need to get every card in the set.
And this is a load of bologna. I have posted a breakdown of the math for all people to see. A booster costs 3.99$. Each booster has 8 cards in it. Each card is one single power. Psionic power has roughly 470 different powers in it (give or take). At 3.99$ per 8 powers you are paying 0.49875$ per power. For 470 powers that is 234.4125. But, that assumes non randomized distribution. When you add in a randomized distribution model you must multiply that number by X, where X is the number of times you will have to buy those 470 powers over and over again in order to get a copy of each of the different powers. After all, you have roughly 470 different powers in a purchase of a power book. Now, I know I have often bought more than 4 packs of minis trying to get a single mini I wanted. So lets substitute the number 4 for X. In that case you have just paid 937.65$ for a the same amount of different powers as you gain in a power book for 29.95$. That means that 40$ worth of such powers would cost 1252.28$. This of course only leaves you with the powers in the power book, for that price, and none of its fluff, feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, items, or the like (though it does give you the powers from the paragon paths and epic destinies). If you wanted the equivalent content of a single class in a power book, via the Gamma World distribution model you will pay more than you would buying a single power book, and wouldn't receive all the extra content in such a book as an effective bonus for your dollar value.
I know what it is about CCGs that bothers me. It is the inability to choose what I am buying when I buy it. It is the inflation of price I pay for equal amounts of content. It is the inability to buy a fixed number of products in order to buy my desired "complete set" of the game's rules. If the game had cards in it, that wouldn't bother me. The "flavor" of cards does not bother me. However, introducing cards through a randomly distributed booster model means that all the elements of a CCG that I really hate will still be present. That distribution model is the "texture" I hate.
Now, you might disagree with me, but I feel like this is a more valid, articulate argument than what you've been saying so far. It's certainly different than saying "I really don't like CCGs, and won't play (or buy) an RPG that tries to introduce a CCG element." As you pointed out, and as I've been trying to suggest all along, there's a difference between an RPG with collectible cards (which Gamma World is) and an RPG with CCG elements (which Gamma World isn't). Because the game can't be played with the cards themselves, and depends on the underlying RPG chasis, Gamma World is as much a CCG as Monopoly is. However, if you don't like "collectible" games, that's a more philosophical opposition that I understand (although I'll maintain that all modular games are somewhat "collectible" and create a divide between haves and have-nots).
I am not bothered by the fortune cards WotC is releasing for D&D, as they are a self contained and optional mechanic. No, the Gamma World boosters do not quality for that description. I have written why earlier in this thread.
Opinion, not fact.
WotC has explicitly stated that some of the randomized booster cards will be more powerful than what a player would have if they do not buy randomized booster packs, because it is the collectible cards in which your most powerful mutations can be found.
Factually incorrect. The paragraph you quoted talks about cards in general; there is no "explicit statement" talking about booster packs. You'll notice that the numbers in both the cards pictured are out of "80," meaning they're part of the deck that comes with the boxed set. Booster cards will be out of "120," and have rarity symbols.
I have posted a breakdown of the math for all people to see.
Your math is correct, but you missed my point. I don't care about the cost per power, because, as I mentioned before, I'm never going to use all 470 powers in Psionic Power. I'm talking about completion cost, because that's been one of your oppositions to Gamma World ("What I also really don't like is not being able to purchase a set number of products in order to own a complete product line."). Now, of course your response is going to be that Psionic Power has 470 powers, and the boosters only have 120 total cards. But you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who use even a quarter of those 470 powers (particularly since the game only allows you to choose one per level). In the meantime, I'm very likely to use all 120 of my GW booster cards, because they can be thrown into the deck and used by any character. The difference is that in terms of game play, I'm throwing a lot more money away on splatbook powers I won't use than I will on duplicate cards.
Opinion, not fact.
Irrelevant. This thread has been an opinion post from the start. It is my consumer feedback to WotC. Fact is, the Gamma World cards don't feel self contained to me. You can not, viably, choose to play without mutations or items. You can viably choose to play D&D without fortunes. This is because the rules for mutations and items are found in the Gamma World boxed set, and are a core feature of the game (this is a fact). The game even comes with a pack or two of random cards to start you off in addition to its non randomized content (this is also a fact). The rules for fortunes are found nowhere in the game unless you buy fortune cards (again, another fact). They are modular and self contained (and insofar as you define modular and self contained as meaning that the rules for the use of fortune cards can not be found in any product you own unless you buy the fortune cards themselves, this is also fact). You are welcome to not hold the same opinion, but due to the facts that my opinion is based on, if you don't I don't value your opinion (on this matter). What is more, WotC is not going to be able to market a different opinion to me. Hence the nature of my consumer feedback...
Factually incorrect. The paragraph you quoted talks about cards in general; there is no "explicit statement" talking about booster packs. You'll notice that the numbers in both the cards pictured are out of "80," meaning they're part of the deck that comes with the boxed set. Booster cards will be out of "120," and have rarity symbols.
The paragraph specifically talks about collectible cards. What makes cards collectible is their rarity system. There is nothing to say that the "most powerful" cards they were talking about are the two specific cards in the picture. On the other hand, the word collectible suggests that they are talking about the cards in the booster packs. If you don't agree, I suppose time will have to settle that dispute. Shortly after the game's release we will find out if there are more powerful cards in the booster packs or not.
Your math is correct, but you missed my point. I don't care about the cost per power, because, as I mentioned before, I'm never going to use all 470 powers in Psionic Power. I'm talking about completion cost, because that's been one of your oppositions to Gamma World ("What I also really don't like is not being able to purchase a set number of products in order to own a complete product line."). Now, of course your response is going to be that Psionic Power has 470 powers, and the boosters only have 120 total cards. But you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who use even a quarter of those 470 powers (particularly since the game only allows you to choose one per level). In the meantime, I'm very likely to use all 120 of my GW booster cards, because they can be thrown into the deck and used by any character. The difference is that in terms of game play, I'm throwing a lot more money away on splatbook powers I won't use than I will on duplicate cards.
No, you missed the point. To me, the completion cost is the cost of all of the material. I do want all of the powers. But, more than that, my math also proves that the cost of any number of powers that you do actually want will end up costing more than an equivalent number of powers in a non-randomized format, because the randomized format always multiplies the cost of each power by an unknown X (where X equals the number of times you will have to buy any given booster pack to purchase the specific power you are trying to buy). Indeed, lets say you will use all of the different 120 GW booster cards, and you are trying to purchase all of those 120 different GW booster cards as a result. That is $59.85 (in card form) before the X factor. You can already buy two Power books for that cost. Once you factor in the X factor the cost rises to unknown heights, with $239.40 being a very conservative estimate. You are trying to say that you are getting a better value for your dollar at that price!? Ok...
Reminded me of Future Releases and this thread in particular. ;)
Don't tell me not to live, just sit and putter
Life's candy and the sun's a ball of butter
Don't bring around a cloud to rain on my parade
Don't tell me not to fly, I simply got to
If someone takes a spill, it's me and not you
Who told you you're allowed to rain on my parade?
C-D, I think you've made it pretty clear that what you're saying is your opinion. But you posted "your consumer feedback to WotC" in an open forum, where it's probable, nay expected, that your opinions will be discussed and disagreed with. The problem is, and you've made this perfectly clear, that you're not interested in discussion (which I am), but simply being right. The extent to which I believe you're twisting facts to support your general distaste for CCGs bears this out. So I'll leave you to your opinions, and I'll spend my time on more fruitful conversations in other threads. But I will say that the intent behind your "open letter to WotC" is one of the things that's wrong with the RPG community.
1) You don't start a discussion by telling people that if they don't agree with you they are childish.
2) It is not that I am interested only in being right, but that when I state my subjective opinion about a factual element of Gamma World there is no right and wrong in regards to that subjective opinion. You don't have the authority to tell someone that their subjective opinion is wrong. There is only my subjective opinion about a factual element of Gamma World. If enough people share my subjective opinion, it would be wrong of WotC not to take my opinion into account (as their primary vested interest is to make money by created products that appeal to the subjective tastes of as large a consumer base as they can). That is all. This thread is only here for me to share my opinion, and for others with a like mind to state that they share it too. Even then, this thread is not going to change a thing (in and of itself). All this thread is going to do is shed some light on the purchasing habits of WotC's customers, and possibly color their interpretation of Gamma World's upcoming sales data. It Gamma World is a resounding success, WotC shouldn't worry about this thread one way or the other. It is only if Gamma World's sales don't match desired expectations that WotC should start to consider factors such as this thread.
3) I have twisted no facts.
4) Pardon me if I could care less about what you consider to be wrong with the RPG community, because I consider your act of stating that everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is childish, and your insistence that we all purchase a product that you have no problem with because you have no problem with it, to be what is wrong with the RPG community.
Game 'balance' matters even in a game as whacky as Gamma World where the balance exists only in the theoretical sense that everyone has the same chance to roll a good or humorously bad character. Distributing new rule options to players in blind, randomized forms that reward obsessive collecting isn't good for balance, or for the cooperative aspect of play. It's great for a competative CCG, of course, just not for an RPG. In an RPG, everyone needs the same access to the rules being used at the table. It's not the use of cards - which, if you read my prior posts, I've aplauded - but the 'collectable' aspect that's problematic. That's why complete decks would be just fine, but booster packs are unacceptable.
I agree with this on a general level, but I don't think it applies to GW.
I hope you're not trying to imply that Gamma World isn't an RPG.
1) I haven't seen anywhere that the uncommon and rare cards are inherently "better," as in they do more damage or have better effects. So I don't see how the randomized booster packs affect balance. They affect the number of options Player X may have compared to Player Y, but if Player X's options aren't inherently better, then there isn't a balance problem.
Actually, more options also impact balance, since options are never precisely identical in usefulness situationally (if they were, they wouldn't be /different/), so more is always better. BUT, cards in your Apha or Omega deck aren't really /options/ in that sense, you just get the luck of the draw out of your deck (that you chose yourself) vs the GMs. AND, as C-D pointed out, you're flat-out wrong in pretending that the cards sold in booster packs aren't inhrently better. They are, it's a selling point WotC proudly trumpetted.
2) I think you're confusing "rules" and "options."
Nope, not at all. You see, any game can be house-ruled, so, as a GM, no matter how much a give rule aspires towards being invioable, it's optional. Every single rule, in every single RPG every published in the history of the hobby is optional. The ones that say "this rule is absolutely mandatory and you're not really playing the game unless you follow it scrupulously" no less so than any other. The ones that say 'optional rule,' no more so than any other. Making a rule formally 'optional' in no way exempts it from being analyzed or judged a good or bad rule.
The only exception is organized play. In organized play, you need a consistent set of rules with little or no deviation - house rules just aren't a viable idea. And, in the one example of organized GW play we have -Game Day, 10/23 - the booster packs are not optional. They are, in fact, a buy-in.
If I don't have Primal Power, I can't play a certain build of barbarian. Now, I can pay $30 to get access to that "option," but I also get powers for three other classes that I don't care about.
That last point is why I think GW booster packs are actually better than D&D splatbooks. Every card contained in a booster pack is useful in your game, because it can be used by any player.
False. Only the cards you actually put in your deck are of value. You can only put two of any given card in a player deck, so any duplicates after the first are valueless. Likewise, any cards you choose not to put in your deck are worthless.
Now, to anaylze that claim about the value of boosters vs splatbooks. If you buy a splatbook for a single build, that build will likely have a unique class feature or two, and one or two powers for each power choice you face over 30 levels - between 25 and 50 features/powers, all to gether, most new builds also include a number of additional powers of more general interest, which you might also get to use. The content of a card is about equivalent to a power or simple class feature. So, to get the same amount of content as a single build would involve buying at least 20, possibly 60 or more cards. At 50 cents each, the cards would be a good deal if you could just buy the ones you really wanted, because the power book is a package deal, you buy everything in it or nothing, and if all you want is the specific class features and powers for one character of that build, you're paying upwards of a buck a power in buying that $30 book. But, of course, you can't buy cards that way, you buy them at random. So if you want 20 specific cards out of a set of 120 you'll have to buy a lot of booster packs, and a lot of cards you don't want to get them. A really bad value for your money.
Of course, if you just want the complete set of optional rules for your game, you'd buy the power book - the content of which far exceeds a deck of 120 cards - for 30 bucks and be done until the next suplement comes out. As C-D pointed out, you'd have to spend hundreds to get a complete set of cards just by buing boosters - and, there's no gaurantee you'd ever collect a complete set.
Even if you're trying to collect every card, you're probably going to spend less on boosters than you would on D&D splatbooks. The "______ Power" books alone cost $180. For that money, I can buy 45 GW booster packs (360 cards), which is probably more than I need to get every card in the set.
Not a good comparison. Gamma World has never had many suplements published for a given edition, while D&D is a very prolific line. The last ed, for instance, had only 3 soft-bound supplements.
Value for the money aside, collecting cards for a competative CCG is part of the fun. Having to collect cards to assemble an RPG ruleset, OTOH, is just a pain. While I can see the apeal to WotC - I'm sure CCGs have a higher margin, for instance - I hope they come to their senses and eventually realease the cards as complete decks.
I've been playing D&D since the 1970's; my parents bought me the original GW boxed set for Christmas when I was eight. However I am not a hidebound fossil; I have embraced 4e D&D fully and think it is a fun, refreshing update to the concept.
4e GW is, on the other hand, a huge mistake. You're saying I won't know what mutant power I'll be able to use until I turn over an AlphaMutation card? Or I won't know what kind of device I'll pull out of my backpack until I turn over an OmegaTech card?
Sure, you say, I'll be able to 'build my deck' the way I want. But it's too arbitrary. Plus, as the referee, I'll have to deal with people showing up with personal decks stacked with all sorts of nastiness? That engenders a distinct "player versus GM" atmosphere that ruins most of the fun of a RPG.
This is the worst idea since "Gammarauders." (shudder).
I've been waiting for a new Gamma World for years, and my worst fear was that WotC would make it goofy. Now they've made it goofy AND arbitrary AND hyper-competitive. aka: not fun.
CCG elements in RPGs need to be modular and an optional add-on, not a core character mechanic.
What about me and other peeps like me guys?
I like the boosters system. I like that I can break some boosters at the beginning of the session an have some new and unxpected game effects.
That's fine, I just won't play with you.
Right now WotC is doing wonbderful job, caterting to both parties.
No, just the opposite. This is a "worst-of-both-worlds" solution.
You want a game without random cards? Buy boxed set and throw away the booster. I want my boosters - I will buy boxed set AND boosters.
And people like you are why this is happening. It's all about the money, when it comes down to it.
But you somehow think that your opinion is superior to mine and instead of happily buying things that suit you and let me buy things that suit me, you start all that "Bad WotC - stop making CCG for RPG?"
No, not at all. I'm just disappointed, is all. But I acknolwedge that this is the way the world is headed. As for "happily buying things that suit you," you're right. And it won't be Gamma World. It'll be the Rogue Trader RPG.
I was just really looking forward to playing Gamma World again. Guess I'll have to wait another ten years.
Who are you to spoil my fun? I want those boosters.
I'm not spoiling anyone's fun. Go on, feed the big corporate marketing machine. you've been brainwashed by the little foil packets. There must be some chemical they put in them that hypnotizes people.
I like that idea. Mind your boxed sets and books and allow me to break my boosters and hunt for rares and so on.
When I "hunt for rares," I want to roleplay said hunting. I don't want to flip over a card and say "well lookee here.... my player just found a powered armorsuit laying around." There's no satisfaction in that, no storytelling. No roleplaying.
Well don't do it. It's a very dumb way to play. Such ideas never came to my mind through all my 14 years of playing D&D.
In what game peeps play like this?
Go on, feed the big corporate marketing machine. you've been brainwashed by the little foil packets. There must be some chemical they put in them that hypnotizes people.
I'm not sure the people you're addressing are the ones who have been, apparently, brainwashed.
>>When I "hunt for rares," I want to roleplay said hunting. I don't want to flip over a card and say "well lookee here.... my player just found a powered armorsuit laying around."
Well don't do it. It's a very dumb way to play. Such ideas never came to my mind through all my 14 years of playing D&D.
In what game peeps play like this?
I have to say I agree with the OP. The CCG elements of the new Gamma World are a huge disappointment and I will not be purchasing any GW products or playing any GW games.
There's no reason not to try out the core game. OK, if you hate CCGs there's an excellent reason not to play on Game Day, but you can still get the boxed set and try it out, /without/ any CCG elements, just cards as a randomization tool.
You're saying I won't know what mutant power I'll be able to use until I turn over an AlphaMutation card? Or I won't know what kind of device I'll pull out of my backpack until I turn over an OmegaTech card?
Sure, you say, I'll be able to 'build my deck' the way I want.atmosphere that ruins most of the fun of a RPG.
I believe the mechanics are going to be more along the lines of drawing a Mutation when you're exposed to radiation (or some other triggers) not when you use it, and drawing a Tech card when you /find/ an item, not when you use it (though, of course, that means a player tech deck really doesn't make much sense - why are you better at finding Black Ray Guns, exactly?).
This is the worst idea since "Gammarauders." (shudder).
It's almost like Gammarauders 2.
Right now WotC is doing wonbderful job, caterting to both parties.
No, just the opposite. This is a "worst-of-both-worlds" solution.
There has long been some crossover between CCGs and RPGs. That is, there are people who play both, and there's generally a greater level of awareness of each hobby in the other than in the general population.
So, in theory, a well-executed CCG-RPG hybrid could tap both markets. This is probably what WotC is swinging for, the best-case scenario.
Failing that, an RPG with CCG elements that caught on among RPGers not already playing CCGs would expand the high-margin of CCGs into the RPG 'space,' which, even if it didn't win outright get more RPGers to try CCGs, would provide a more profitable model when selling to RPGers (this has already worked to an extent with D&D miniatures, for instance, which are sold in random packs).
Failing that, you'd get a game that only apeals to the intersection of the two sets, people who already like both CCGs and RPGs. You don't gain anything, but the game might still succeed.
Worst-case, the hybrid just doesn't fly, and the game fails. Gamma World has failed enough times in the past that WotC has no reason to care. (Seriously, the 5th Ed of Gamma World was cancelled while the first book was on the way to retailers, it litterally failed before it was released).
The CCG aspect is completely optional. You can easily make your own. You could take D&D feats or powers and make them into "cards"/mutations. Take the ones included and just use those. Etc. I certainly see no driving force to collecting them all, so the term CCG really doesn't fit at all.
I highly recommend trying the game at the upcoming gameday. If you regularly play Encounters or other gamedays, the cost of attending (two boosters) is extremely low if you think of this being the first time you had to pay for a session. Worst case you give them to someone else or resell them and you supported your store.
I own the box, having judged at PAX, and I think it is really good. Perfect? Of course not - I can't think of a game I own that is perfect. But it is absolutely worth keeping an open mind, trying, and enjoying. This is a fun game.
I wish I could think of something...
How about this: Want to support Gamma World, your local game store, and play on Game Day, but have a Complete Mental Block (D) against CCGs? Go to your FLGS, confirm that they accept returns for store credit, sign up for Gamma World Game Day. Hold your nose and buy 2 booster packs. Place them in front of you on the table, unopened, and play the game without them - if the GM asks, say "I was told the CCG aspect was 'completely optional.'" If you decide you liked GW, return the two unopened booster packs and put the 8 bucks towards the game. If not, put the store credit to something else - you're a gamer, you buy stuff at your FLGS.
Keep an open mind, folks. Every single person I saw/heard play the game at PAX had a great time. I had a great time. While I would rather the cards be non-random expansion packs, they work well for the game. The mechanic of the random cards keeps the game really fluid, campy, and interesting. Too strong a power? Next combat it changes... or when you roll a certain way... or...
The CCG aspect is completely optional. You can easily make your own. You could take D&D feats or powers and make them into "cards"/mutations. Take the ones included and just use those. Etc. I certainly see no driving force to collecting them all, so the term CCG really doesn't fit at all.
I highly recommend trying the game at the upcoming gameday. If you regularly play Encounters or other gamedays, the cost of attending (two boosters) is extremely low if you think of this being the first time you had to pay for a session. Worst case you give them to someone else or resell them and you supported your store.
I own the box, having judged at PAX, and I think it is really good. Perfect? Of course not - I can't think of a game I own that is perfect. But it is absolutely worth keeping an open mind, trying, and enjoying. This is a fun game.
No thanks. I would rather not buy this product. Its strong CCG element stops it from appealing to me. I have no interest in inflating this game's sales despite the way I feel about this product in relation to the RPG market.
I believe the mechanics are going to be more along the lines of drawing a Mutation when you're exposed to radiation (or some other triggers) not when you use it, and drawing a Tech card when you /find/ an item, not when you use it (though, of course, that means a player tech deck really doesn't make much sense - why are you better at finding Black Ray Guns, exactly?).
See, here's the thing. If the mechanic was like what you describe, it wouldn't be too bad. "You get zapped with a muta-beam, draw a mutation card." or "You open a chest, inside you find something useful... draw a card." Still weird and arbitrary and potentially overpowered for people who build thousand-dollar decks, but it could at least fit in with the storytelling aspect, if only barely.
But my understanding is, you are drawing a card for EVERY COMBAT TURN. So, turn 1, you have crustacean crab claws that pop out and do damage, then turn 2 the claws disappear and you suddenly pull a grav-hammer out of your back pocket, take a swing with it, and throw it away. Turn 3, laser beams shoot from your eyes. Turn 4, you suddenly grow a power-armor suit that lasts one turn then falls off.
Yeah, sorry, just too wacky for me.
>>When I "hunt for rares," I want to roleplay said hunting. I don't want to flip over a card and say "well lookee here.... my player just found a powered armorsuit laying around."
Well don't do it. It's a very dumb way to play. Such ideas never came to my mind through all my 14 years of playing D&D.
In what game peeps play like this?
In what game? Gamma World 4th edition, apparently. I agree with you. In 30 years of playing role-playing games, I've never seen one in which characters spontaneously and semi-randomly change their core abilities and equipment from one turn to the next.
While I'd really like to see folks give Gamma World a chance, I have a hard time parroting the 'completely optional' line while inviting them to come play on Game Day, where the boosters are required.
Just to be clear, the cards aren't really optional. They are mechanically similar to feats and powers. You totally will enjoy them in the game and won't want to work without them. The CCG aspect, where you could choose to collect cards, is totally optional. You don't have to buy any more cards than what you get with the box. In fact, the amount in the box plus a couple of boosters seems like a pretty good amount to me.
See, here's the thing. If the mechanic was like what you describe, it wouldn't be too bad. "You get zapped with a muta-beam, draw a mutation card." or "You open a chest, inside you find something useful... draw a card." Still weird and arbitrary and potentially overpowered for people who build thousand-dollar decks, but it could at least fit in with the storytelling aspect, if only barely.
But my understanding is, you are drawing a card for EVERY COMBAT TURN.
You get rid of your mutation cards at the end of a combat encounter (not a combat turn/round). This is based on the fleeting temporal nature of the game. You acquire them in ways similar to the ones you mention/wish. Also, because a DM can choose to use their deck (instead of a player's), there is good capability to limit cheese. That thousand $ deck can get them to combat 1, but then things can change if need be. The DM can also theme their own deck to favor a particular plot (such as one dealing with a particular alternate reality type, a certain environmental setting, etc.). The opportunities to house rule how you acquire and get rid of cards is pretty huge.
It plays really well, in my limited experience at PAX (as a judge and player). Also, having played the awesome adventure Logan made (which Wil Wheaton wrote about), I can say that the game works well from a Role-Playing standpoint. You can tell some really good and funny stories with GW.
I get that the CCG angle is a turn-off. It is for me too. Just keep in mind it is a very tiny and unimportant part of the game. I consider it of no consequence. WotC could have made the CCG idea a big part of the game... it isn't. They are smart for experimenting with different game types and this was a well done and non-invasive way to experiment.
But, it is way cool to hate. Don't let me get in the way of that... I'm gonna unsubscribe from the thread, but feel free to PM me if there are questions about the game.
Just to be clear, the cards aren't really optional. They are mechanically similar to feats and powers. You totally will enjoy them in the game and won't want to work without them. The CCG aspect, where you could choose to collect cards, is totally optional. You don't have to buy any more cards than what you get with the box. In fact, the amount in the box plus a couple of boosters seems like a pretty good amount to me.
This is a disingenuous claim. I have gone over why earlier in this thread. It is great that you feel it is optional. However, I do not. I am not ok with buying a product where the number of groups I can play with are reduced due to the fact that I am only willing to play in groups that will not make use of the cards; I am not ok with playing at a game where I don't have a deck, and a player next to me has spent hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on making the perfect deck; I am not ok with any possible scenario of context in regards to my purchase of this game. In other words, I am not sold. The CCG aspect has turned me off purchasing this game, end of story. Nothing anyone can say is going to change that. Now, maybe that doesn't matter! I am not so self centered to believe that WotC should not make games like this if such games sell well. If this game sells well, then [censored] my opinion! But if WotC sees this game's sales perform sub-optimally, perhaps they should take note of how many people in this thread said that they feel much the way I do. Now I just hope this game's sales perform sub-optimally. I suggest that people who feel like I do help me in trying to make that hope a reality.
My feeling is not hate, it's disappointment. WotC is making a design-based decision based on marketing, not a marketing-based decision based on design. It's their choice to make, and as I said in my first post, I recognize that this is the way the world is heading.
All right so in the interest of not being a 'hater' I will try to think of a way to house-rule this in a way I could abide by. Let's see...
Campaign start: Start with the basic box set, and the 'boosters' in the box. I (referee) keep them all behind the screen. At character generation, I work with players in coming up with a character concept. Maybe we can develop a fun card-game-based model of character generation where players are drawing and trading cards amongst themsevles to design their characters. "I'll trade you two Neutron Pistols for that Life Leech mutation card." Make character design a mini-game of its own.
Now, characters are settled on, and the game begins. They use their mutations and artifacts in a 4e D&D way.
Every once iin a while, a character will get zapped with a mutation, and I'll hand them a deck of mutation cards to pick from.
Every once in a while, the players will find a new piece of archaeotech, and I'll hand them the appropriate artifact card so they'll know what the found.
(by the way, one of my favorite aspects of old-school GW was the flowchart for trying to figure out how an artifact works. Shame to see that go.)
Problem: player comes to me with a new booster deck he wants to play full of overpowered mutations and artifacts. What to do? I could tell him no, we're only using my deck. Or maybe I'll say, ok, you want stuff in that deck, I'll give you a chance to discover / earn / find them.
So, it could work, but then the cards would be more like D&D spell cards - more of a reference guide.
And as a way of trying to achieve balance, I'd have to evaluate every card and assign it some kind of a "cost." So that way I can be reasonably certain one player won't dominate the game by having all the most powerful cards.
As the OP stated, the problem with this is that this will preclude a large portion of the player base who want to play with "their deck." So I'm not sure if it's worth the investment of time, money, and effort to come up with a house-ruled version of 4e GW that only a portion (maybe a very small portion) would be interested in playing.
As the OP stated, the problem with this is that this will preclude a large portion of the player base who want to play with "their deck." So I'm not sure if it's worth the investment of time, money, and effort to come up with a house-ruled version of 4e GW that only a portion (maybe a very small portion) would be interested in playing.
That is pretty much my feeling. Does the game look interesting? Yes. Would I buy it if it didn't have the CCG element? Yes. Would I probably enjoy it if it was played without any booster packs? As long as it has enough options right out of the box to viably play with up to 4 or 5 players, yea! Thing is, I don't really feel like playing for a product whose gamer population, that I can play with, is immediately cut to a fraction of the game's total gamer population, because I am only willing to play with people that also hate the CCG element. I would rather just not buy the game at all, and spend my money on a product where I know everyone who has bought the product is playing a game that I want to play.
Problem: player comes to me with a new booster deck he wants to play full of overpowered mutations and artifacts. What to do? I could tell him no, we're only using my deck. Or maybe I'll say, ok, you want stuff in that deck, I'll give you a chance to discover / earn / find them.
How does forbidding a player from using abilities in the game designed around their use enhance anyone's enjoyment of the game?
To me, this smacks of the same senseless reactionary DMing that bans Dragon material outright, or specific books "because they're overpowered." It seems as though you've come to assume that using cards that are only traditionally used in a competitive manner inherently causes some sort of Player vs. DM mentality, when it's actually caused by this very attitude.
The idea that a player approaching you to play the game he purchased in the precise manner that it was designed to be played is a "problem" simply boggles my mind.
WotC is making a design-based decision based on marketing, not a marketing-based decision based on design.
Unfortunately, this is a completely baseless claim.
How does forbidding a player from using abilities in the game designed around their use enhance anyone's enjoyment of the game?
It was what is known as a "straw-man" argument, to show that the game can't really be 'fixed.' That to remove the CCG elements of the game would require such a massive overhaul that the game itself wouldn't work afterwards, thus refuting those people who claim the CCG elements of GW 4e are optional.
To me, this smacks of the same senseless reactionary DMing that bans Dragon material outright, or specific books "because they're overpowered." It seems as though you've come to assume that using cards that are only traditionally used in a competitive manner inherently causes some sort of Player vs. DM mentality, when it's actually caused by this very attitude.
Nope. Not if you craft the story right, make your campaign internally consistent, and really listen to the players. In fact, I've found one of the best ways to ruin a campaign is to give the players everything they want right away without having to work for it, or have to explain it in order to weave it into the backstory. Of course, you have to be diplomatic about it. But if you're playing, say, an Oriental Adventures campaign and a player wants to introduce a Spelljammer mechanic, and you know that kind of thing would just throw everything off, you try and figure out what the player is trying to accomplish with that idea and work with them to find a way of introducing said elements (or something similar enough) without ruining the campaign for everyone else. It's a lot more work than just cracking open another booster pack, but it's worth it.
The idea that a player approaching you to play the game he purchased in the precise manner that it was designed to be played is a "problem" simply boggles my mind.
The player showing up with the thousand-dollar deck will be having great fun. Mr. Thousand-dollar-deck will be dominating the encounters and forcing the referee to alter the campaign to accommodate his deck. Which of course means the players with the basic set of cards will be contributing little to nothing to the success of the group. It will be those people, who don't have all the nifty rares, that will not be enjoying themselves. And anytime even one person at my table is not completely enjoying themselves, I consider that a "problem."
The side effect, of course, is that they will feel an urge to rush out and spend lots of money on booster packs, in order to keep up with Mr. Thousand-dollar-deck. This is what I meant by the game design being driven primarily by marketing concepts. Not a baseless claim. Rather, it is clear that it was an extremely conscious decision on WotC's part. (a) CCGs = cash cow. (b) RPGs = sales go flat within 1-2 years after release. (c) solution: make RPGs more CCG-like, to keep people spending money.
I prefer an egalitarian gaming environment where everyone is equally able to participate and contribute to the success of the group, regardless of their personal financial situation.
How does forbidding a player from using abilities in the game designed around their use enhance anyone's enjoyment of the game?
Thank you for proving our point FlashbackJon. There is nothing optional about the CCG element of this game. In order to play at a table reasonably, you need to allow the CCG element at the table. And yet, for reasons we have outlined over and over, having that CCG element at our table ruins the game for us. So, as we have said, we won't be purchasing this product as a result.
I provided no such proof, sir! If my building is built handicapped accessible, does that mean you are required to be handicapped to enter?
To be fair, though, I have no problem with your point: "I don't like CCGs and so games that include cards in a collectible format in any capacity do not interest me." As it turns out, arguing against personal preference is not exactly a worthwhile endeavor.
EDIT: Wow, and you're calling me out as if my standing up for a fictional player or asking to play a game the way it was designed makes me a "fun thief." Thanks for that.
To be fair, though, I have no problem with your point: "I don't like CCGs and so games that include cards in a collectible format in any capacity do not interest me." As it turns out, arguing against personal preference is not exactly a worthwhile endeavor.
EDIT: Wow, and you're calling me out as if my standing up for a fictional player or asking to play a game the way it was designed makes me a "fun thief." Thanks for that.
Thank you for proving our point FlashbackJon. There is nothing optional about the CCG element of this game. In order to play at a table reasonably, you need to allow the CCG element at the table. And yet, for reasons we have outlined over and over, having that CCG element at our table ruins the game for us. So, as we have said, we won't be purchasing this product as a result.I provided no such proof, sir! If my building is built handicapped accessible, does that mean you are required to be handicapped to enter?
To be fair, though, I have no problem with your point: "I don't like CCGs and so games that include cards in a collectible format in any capacity do not interest me." As it turns out, arguing against personal preference is not exactly a worthwhile endeavor.
EDIT: Wow, and you're calling me out as if my standing up for a fictional player or asking to play a game the way it was designed makes me a "fun thief." Thanks for that.
I don't like daily powers as a mechanic for a number of reasons. (FYI: This is not a hypothetical -- I'm serious, here.) They could be removed from 4e, but it would take a considerable deal of work, to the point that it would be impossible to reasonably play at a table that does not include daily powers of any sort.
The game thus does not appeal to all players as some here have claimed. No matter how you approach the game, someone gets ostracized. Which means that when you purchase this game, the size of the player base that you will be willing to play with is much smaller than the size of the player base actually buying the game.
I can literally use this chunk of sentences to accurately describe any game I've ever played, seen, or heard about. If your point is that you cannot release a product that meets every expectation of its target audience, then I guess I have to ask what we're even arguing?
To be perfectly accurate, you cannot be "robbed" of fun. Neither can I. As "having fun" is a completely internal thing, an attitude, controlled by oneself and no one else. For this reason, I can still enjoy an activity of which I am not fond, such as playing a game with cumbersome house rules or doing chores or mowing the lawn. If I don't have fun, it's because I chose not to have fun given my circumstances.
I don't think you can adequately show that the "social nightmare" presented by this edition of Gamma World is worse, or even substantially different, than the social nightmare caused by any new edition of any game, ever, in the modern history of games -- or even just by WotC. Certainly not the worst.
For the record: I don't like CCGs. I'm not big into any type of competitive gaming, in fact. Assuming that one must like/play/enjoy CCGs to enjoy collectible cards as a mechanic in other avenues of gaming is both fallacious and inaccurate.
Gamma World: I hate collectible cards. I won't enjoy playing at any table that includes their use.
You starting to figure out the difference yet? If not, don't worry about it. What matters is that I won't be purchasing or playing this game. If WotC sees the sales of this product suffer, they can look at this thread, and other threads like it present throughout the internet, and try and figure out exactly what has turned those of us who are not buying this game off the product.
And "fun" can be "robbed." The statement that "fun" is a subjective space of mind, and thus anyone can have fun doing anything if they are but willing to, is disingenuous. Forgive the hyperbole for a minute, but I think you will have trouble finding someone who will claim that suffering a horrible death is fun. Obviously collectible cards are a far cry from a horrible death. But if my sensibilities stop me from being able to have fun with such cards in my games, then you forcing me to play the game with the cards robs me of my fun. Your decision stops me from being able to have fun while doing something that I would otherwise enjoy. The same is true of me removing options that you really enjoy from your game, despite your enjoyment of those options.
Finally, your statement as to my point is accurate. Calling the CCG aspect of this game akin to daily attack powers is apt. However, some people in this thread have claimed that the CCG aspect of the game is optional. It is not. It is not a reasonable option to play at a Gamma World game without including the CCG aspect at the table at all.
You starting to figure out the difference yet?
Yes, ever since I accurately phrased it in my first response to you.
And "fun" can be "robbed." The statement that "fun" is a subjective space of mind, and thus anyone can have fun doing anything if they are but willing to, is disingenuous. Forgive the hyperbole for a minute, but I think you will have trouble finding someone who will claim that suffering a horrible death is fun. Obviously collectible cards are a far cry from a horrible death. But if my sensibilities stop me from being able to have fun with such cards in my games, then you forcing me to play the game with the cards robs me of my fun. Your decision stops me from being able to have fun while doing something that I would otherwise enjoy. The same is true of me removing options that you really enjoy from your game, despite your enjoyment of those options.
I apologize. I made two assumptions:
- Our discussion is taking place completely within the realm of hobbies and/or everyday things that individuals may or may not find enjoyable, not tragic happenstance or, generally, anything with the adjective "horrible."
- I can't actually force you to do anything, within the laws of a civil society.
The only thing disingenuous here is your examples.
Ranting about fun...
Your "sensibilities" are completely within the purview of things you define. They are not some immutable external or internal force separate from you that prevents you from finding enjoyment in things. You find enjoyment in the things in which you choose to find enjoyment. If you are willing and determined to find enjoyment doing something you hate, you will succeed in doing so.
If it sounds like I'm devoting too much time to this minor issue, it's because I am, as it's a huge pet peeve of mine. You are not a victim of your thoughts: you're the source of them.
If it sounds like I'm devoting too much time to this minor issue, it's because I am, as it's a huge pet peeve of mine. You are not a victim of your thoughts: you're the source of them.
I know going in that I am now in the minority on this stance, but I stopped playing when the majority of RPG gamers shifted over to the "more role less roll" and "rules interfere with story" mentality. If I wanted to sit around a table and do nothing but adopt fake accents and play amateur thespian for an entire evening, I would go and join a liberal arts class. When I want to play a game, I want to play a game.
And this is what I think gradually started with 3E and gained even more ground now. Marketing reasons notwithstanding, I like that WoTC is trying to finally put the game back in roleplaying game.
Now I am in no way talking down to the collaborative storytellers out there (which, on a purely personal level, I don't enjoy trying to play with), to each their own and by all means play the style of game (after all, even that is a subjective term) you want to play. I for one, and all four of my kids, are eagerly looking forward to my pre-order of Gamma World to get here, and even for booster packs to appear in stores, so we can start some monster slaying mayhem!
Or, there is another option. When a game's rules make such imbalance an intrinsic part of its rules as written, such as the spellcaster vs. nonspellcaster imbalance of 3e, or the uber-deck builder vs. non-deck builder in Gamma World, you choose not to buy or play that game. That choice becomes even more appealing when your power hinges not around mere choices, but around your real world cash flow and willingness to sink money into the hobby. Because otherwise, sometimes you try and change the game and have to deal with a player like FlashbackJon telling you that that isn't fun. And you know what? Dealing with that situation isn't fun.
That's a problem of peeps you play with, not a game ruleset or some part of it. If there is someone in your group willing to spend his resourses (real or in-game) to make the game fun for him and unfun for others, he is either a jerk or a case of honest misunderstanding. Either way it's your job as a GM to set things straight. Not change/choose rules to use, but make sure the game is fun for everyone and jerks are out of it.
There is so much that is simply fallacious about your assertions here. However for simplicity sake I will cut straight to the "bottom line."
The bottom line is: I simply can't imagine the adversarial gaming groups you're referencing (even in a con, Encounters, or other "gaming with strangers" environment) where DMs don't trust their players and players try to sneak overpowered options under their DM's nose, compete with one another to top the charts, and are unwilling to share resources or cooperate for a common goal. I also cannot believe that my experience is singular and unique in this capacity.
You are correct in one respect; I have never seen a RPG group like you describe above. However every single CCG playing group I have participated in has been exactly like this. And it seems to me that in order to play GW 4e 'correctly,' you have to adopt CCG mechanics. And with CCG mechanics comes CCG attitude. That is the bottom line.
I know going in that I am now in the minority on this stance,
Actually I am getting the impression that you are in the majority.
but I stopped playing when the majority of RPG gamers shifted over to the "more role less roll" and "rules interfere with story" mentality.
My impression is the exact opposite. 4e D&D is all about the mechanics and the rolling of dice and slaying of monsters. Can you play a 4e D&D battle without a grid-map? Not really. Lots of fun, yes, but not exactly condusive towards ROLE-playing.
Now I am in no way talking down to the collaborative storytellers out there
Really? Hmm, let me see:
If I wanted to sit around a table and do nothing but adopt fake accents and play amateur thespian for an entire evening, I would go and join a liberal arts class.
That sure sounds like "talking down" to me.
(which, on a purely personal level, I don't enjoy trying to play with),
Well I try to make the effort to enjoy playing different styles of games and with different styles of gamers. You should try it sometime.
to each their own and by all means play the style of game (after all, even that is a subjective term) you want to play. I for one, and all four of my kids, are eagerly looking forward to my pre-order of Gamma World to get here, and even for booster packs to appear in stores, so we can start some monster slaying mayhem! When I want to play a game, I want to play a game.
There are plenty of very nice monster-bashing videogames you can play these days (most of whom erroneously call themselves Role-Playing Games) if all you care about is slaying monsters. And you don't have to "adopt a fake accent" while doing so.
That's a problem of peeps you play with, not a game ruleset or some part of it. If there is someone in your group willing to spend his resourses (real or in-game) to make the game fun for him and unfun for others, he is either a jerk or a case of honest misunderstanding.
I think we're starting to get to the heart of the matter here.
In order to be successful at CCGs, you have to be a bit of a jerk.
I'm not saying that's not fun. There are lots of people who derive enormous amounts of enjoyment from adopting a jerky-attitude, and are perfectly OK with other people being jerk-ish towards them. A successful, thriving CCG group has every member exhibiting the kind of hypercompetitive (read: jerk-ish) behavior you describe. The stock market is similar. Lots of stock traders having the time of their lives yelling and hollaring at each other trying to screw each other in new and exciting ways. And they love it. That's all well and good, but then you try and make RPG players (most of whom are more collaborative / supportive / generally more chill) have to adopt a CCG attitude. I'm not sure that will fly.
So CCG attitude is worse than the elitist snobbery of "if you're not role playing it my way, it's wrong?"
4E is great, when I talk about games I have NO love for it's usually something along the lines of Unisystem or White Wolf type systems.
I play lots of tactical miniature wargames, card-driven board games, and have reluctantly played a few CCGs, ALL competitive, and honestly have never had trouble with players being jerks to each other. Then again, I never play outside of just an evening's entertainment with friends and/or family either.
I'll just leave this thread with, for me, ALL the elements of the new Gamma World are spot on with what I want in a new game to add my collection.
I'm just not even going to read the posts in this thread, I'm sure I've read them already in every single Gamma World thread on every website. Gamma World comes with 95 cards, it's completely playable without picking up a single booster pack. They've stated the reason to have the cards is so that they don't have to release more and more convoluted tables with each release and decide which releases to assume you have already purchased added to the fact that some see Gamma World as goofy and some want to play more serious games, cards let you do what you want with it easily instead of making your own tables and changing them every time there is a release. Plus, it's just handy to have cards there for reference.
None of that requires the cards (which I have no problem with) to have a rarity system or be distributed in randomized booster packs (which is a guaranteed deal-breaker for me). Randomization can occur at the table through shuffling. If WotC believes randomization is impossible at the table, or that such randomization is insufficient, then every MtG game would require purchasing a whole new deck of cards.
There's also a big point where the argument against this fails, and that is the second you mention the term CCG, because Gamma World and the Fate cards or whatever are NOT collectible, any more than a book release is. They are random, but the designers have said you aren't meant to collect an entire set and it is within a NONCOMPETITIVE format=NOT COLLECTIBLE.
That is actually incorrect for two reasons. The first and simplest is that it has been stated that the cards will be collectible. The second reason is that every RPG is competitive, the only distinction is that you are competing against a common enemy (the monsters, traps, and hazards) instead of against other players.
You know, it really surprises me how much people want to critique products they don't and never intended to purchase, I think it's fairly obvious that you are not the person marketing was targeting.
There are several of us who would have been inclined to purchase GW if WotC had not opted to distribute the cards through randomized boosters. As a fan of early sci-fi (Flash Gordon, etc.) I would have bought the product if only it didn't include rules distributed through randomized boosters.
You aren't the target audience, you stopped being anyone's target audience twenty years ago.
Ah, but I am their target audience. I am a gamer, a player of the 4e system, a fan of sci-fi that enjoys a quirky game (I'm one of the few people I know that purchased the D20 Modern incarnation of Macho Women With Guns), and i don't mind replacing random tables with cards. What I mind the distribution through randomized boosters. I am more than capable of shuffling cards on my own. I don't need to pay many times the going rate for game rules just because they come prerandomized.
And if you really do run a gaming store, I hope you have a better grasp of your customer base than you do of why people are opposed to the CCG aspect of GW.
The only thing disingenuous here is your examples.
There was nothing disingenuous about my examples. I provided both a hyperbolic version, and a version that directly correlates to the issue at hand. Point in case, in both examples someone's fun is robbed of them. If you can concretely define what you subjectively define as fun, anytime someone sabotages that outline they rob you of your fun.Your "sensibilities" are completely within the purview of things you define. They are not some immutable external or internal force separate from you that prevents you from finding enjoyment in things. You find enjoyment in the things in which you choose to find enjoyment. If you are willing and determined to find enjoyment doing something you hate, you will succeed in doing so.
Load of bologna. No one should ever be asked to try and enjoy something they hate. Trying to force someone to enjoy something they hate is not a reasonable request. And yes, trying to force someone to participate in something they hate does equate to robbing that person of their fun. It makes no difference that what each of us define as fun is subjective. Once that subjective personal reality becomes public knowledge, to request that someone step outside of those boundaries is not reasonable.
I'll just leave this thread with, for me, ALL the elements of the new Gamma World are spot on with what I want in a new game to add my collection.
I have no problem with "game" in my role playing game. I love 4e. I do have a problem with randomized collectible marketing formats. It is great if you don't! WotC better hope that there is enough people like you out there to make up for the money they are going to lose from people like me.
I'm just not even going to read the posts in this thread, I'm sure I've read them already in every single Gamma World thread on every website.
Based on your post, it looks like you should have read this thread before replying.
Gamma World comes with 95 cards, it's completely playable without picking up a single booster pack.
False. See the game day requirements.
They've stated the reason to have the cards is so that they don't have to release more and more convoluted tables with each release and decide which releases to assume you have already purchased added to the fact that some see Gamma World as goofy and some want to play more serious games, cards let you do what you want with it easily instead of making your own tables and changing them every time there is a release.
That doesn't justify a randomized collectible marketing release format. They could have just sold decks of non randomized cards.
Plus, it's just handy to have cards there for reference. I really just can't see a more convenient way to handle this except maybe the living card game model, BUT this model lets them do only a single release and put everything in it at a low price point and depending on demand they can just stop or continue production instead of working on a whole different release, etc.
False. I have already provided the math. This is not a low price point. In fact, the inflation of price one will pay for an equivalent amount of content found in other 4e products is staggering.
It's just smart, you can't hate Wizard's for making money and trying to find intelligent ways to do so. And again, if you don't want the cards, the game comes with plenty of material, and it just means that Wizards won't print the boosters as long, nobody loses.
I lose if I buy this game. The reasons why have been outlined in this thread.
There's also a big point where the argument against this fails, and that is the second you mention the term CCG, because Gamma World and the Fate cards or whatever are NOT collectible, any more than a book release is.
False. The developers themselves have called the booster pacts a collectible release. Gamma World makes use of collectible cards, complete with a rarity system, randomly distributed, and which have been called collectible by the developers. Not that it matters what the developers call the cards. The rarity system, and random distribution, is what makes them collectible. That is the very definition of a collectible card release.
They are random, but the designers have said you aren't meant to collect an entire set and it is within a NONCOMPETITIVE format=NOT COLLECTIBLE.
They have also called them collectible explicitly in recently released previews. I am guessing they realized that people with any sense saw through the "you don't have to collect an entire set" load of bologna, because that is irrelevant. "Having to do something" isn't part of the equation. What any player has to or doesn't have to do is a subjective decision, and that is true of games like Magic as well. The randomized distribution model with a rarity system is what defines a collectible release.
You know, it really surprises me how much people want to critique products they don't and never intended to purchase, I think it's fairly obvious that you are not the person marketing was targeting.
Except, I probably was one of the people they were trying to target. I own every 4e book released to date with the exception of the two Draconomicons, the Demonicon, and the two race books. I will eventually buy the two Draconomicons and the Demonicon. I love sci-fi games. I own all the Star Wars Saga books and all the d20 Modern books. I love Gamma World. And yet, I won't be purchasing this product because of their decision to include a CCG element to it. It is important that they know things like that, because it pertains to how their products will or won't sell.
Hell, I have people coming in my store every day whining about 4E DnD that haven't played since 2E or even 1E and have never purchased anything from my store except the occasional set of dice each time their sleazy friends steal their old sets, I have people come in my store and complain about DnD that have never played it and instead play WoD or some other system, and I just have to say that, you know, all my customers that play 4E? They like it, and they buy it, and I don't care what you think about it because you buy something else, or in most cases, don't buy anything at all and just tell me all their 3.5 powergaming stories. You aren't the target audience, you stopped being anyone's target audience twenty years ago.
Except, that is obviously false. All of those 4e books I own? They prove your statement false. All of my d20 sci-fi gaming products that I own? They prove your statement false. Fact is, I am almost their exact target audience for this book. They lost me on one thing; the CCG element. If that element was not a part of this game, if the game's cards were not randomly distributed with a rarity system, I would be buying this game ASAP. Which is what WotC should realize. That CCG element is so controversial, and so despised, that some players who otherwise lap up their products will not purchase products with a CCG element.
In order to be successful at CCGs, you have to be a bit of a jerk.
you know, over the years I have meet alot of jerks... BUT I have also meet alot of good people at tournamanets.
I played Yu-gi-oh for fun, same with spellfire, and lord of the rings... and you know what I could have fun loseing or winning (ok winning is better).
I have also meet alot of jerk role-players... DMs who call themselves GODs, and players who think if anything goes wrong it is ok to yell at or threaten the DM...
That's a problem of peeps you play with, not a game ruleset or some part of it. If there is someone in your group willing to spend his resourses (real or in-game) to make the game fun for him and unfun for others, he is either a jerk or a case of honest misunderstanding.
I think we're starting to get to the heart of the matter here.
In order to be successful at CCGs, you have to be a bit of a jerk.
I'm not saying that's not fun. There are lots of people who derive enormous amounts of enjoyment from adopting a jerky-attitude, and are perfectly OK with other people being jerk-ish towards them. A successful, thriving CCG group has every member exhibiting the kind of hypercompetitive (read: jerk-ish) behavior you describe. The stock market is similar. Lots of stock traders having the time of their lives yelling and hollaring at each other trying to screw each other in new and exciting ways. And they love it. That's all well and good, but then you try and make RPG players (most of whom are more collaborative / supportive / generally more chill) have to adopt a CCG attitude. I'm not sure that will fly.
Mmm. What a CCG group has to do with RP group? You think a memeber of a group which is normal will suddenly become a jerk after CCG element is introduced? And your words about being a jerk to succeed in CCG are just plain stupid and unfair. I saw lots of peeps in both hobbies (I once owned a hobby store and a gaming club). They are largely the same peeps and no-one likes jerks either in CCG or RPG.
There is so much that is simply fallacious about your assertions here.
Upon further inspection, you'll find that this is not at all true.
You are correct in one respect; I have never seen a RPG group like you describe above. However every single CCG playing group I have participated in has been exactly like this. And it seems to me that in order to play GW 4e 'correctly,' you have to adopt CCG mechanics. And with CCG mechanics comes CCG attitude. That is the bottom line.
You have no evidence of this claim. Not even anecdotal. The elements that make some CCG playing groups like the above (inherently competitive player vs. player, unmoderated gameplay, collectible cards as one and only mechanic) are completely absent from Gamma World, and in fact, are the exact opposite in this game: cooperative, moderated player vs. environment with drawing cards providing a customizable randomized table of available mechanics.
This isn't a CCG1. It features collectible cards and the associated meta-game CCG appeal (collection, rarity, etc), but the game itself is so dissimilar from any existing CCG gameplay that there's no legitimate reason to assume that sort of "CCG attitude" will carry over. Certainly no such reason has been provided in this thread.
What can I say? Even though I hate CCG games,
(...snip)
I'll just leave this thread with, for me, ALL the elements of the new Gamma World are spot on with what I want in a new game to add my collection.
Well I'm trying to figure this comment out. How can you hate CCGs, and love GW, with CCGs?
'Cause he gets the difference - that's how. ;)
What can I say? Even though I hate CCG games,
(...snip)
I'll just leave this thread with, for me, ALL the elements of the new Gamma World are spot on with what I want in a new game to add my collection.
Well I'm trying to figure this comment out. How can you hate CCGs, and love GW, with CCGs?
'Cause he gets the difference - that's how. ;)
in the place I am right now (underemployed about to be layed off any moment) I can say I am not up to starting or restarting a CCG, but I look forward to, and have already pre paid not just for gamma world, but for the first add on book for it as well...
I see the cards as optional (an option I will only pick up every now and then on an impulse buy) and as such Gamma world is NOT a CCG to me...
edit: you know that is the trick right, if you don't use the cards it doesn't matter...and if you do use the cards it is no one;s fault but your own...
Edit2: I still support cards in ravenloft box set...
What can I say? Even though I hate CCG games,
(...snip)
I'll just leave this thread with, for me, ALL the elements of the new Gamma World are spot on with what I want in a new game to add my collection.
Well I'm trying to figure this comment out. How can you hate CCGs, and love GW, with CCGs?
'Cause he gets the difference - that's how. ;)
That's pretty much it in a nutshell!
But I think I may not have been as clear as I should have when I said I hate CCGs. Unlike the posters who are hating CCGs because they are random/blind purchase and/or collectible or whatever, the reason I hate CCGs is just that I find the gameplay to be tedious and lacking. I personally have no problem with the Collectible part of the equation. In fact, much as it is with my oldest son's Star Wars Miniatures, I (and the kids) quite enjoy opening up a new pack and being surprised by what we find. It's part of the fun.
Having said that, just because GW offers additional cards in booster packs does not make it CCG. In a CCG, the cards ARE the game, in GW they are ONE PART of the game as a whole, just like the cards in many of the adventure board games I own. After my copy of GW arrives, there is going to be no compulsion to run out and start buying up booster packs left and right to hunt for whatever proverbial rare collectible card (and honestly, I don't think that's quite how WoTC intends the packs to work), but I definitely look forward to seeing them in stores for an occasional impulse buy. My kids and I will have fun cracking a few open to see what new possibilities we can shuffle into the mix.
And if I don't see any boosters locally, then I will still have plenty of options with the complete deck the box set comes with.
While I'd really like to see folks give Gamma World a chance, I have a hard time parroting the 'completely optional' line while inviting them to come play on Game Day, where the boosters are required.
Just to be clear, the cards aren't really optional. They are mechanically similar to feats and powers. You totally will enjoy them in the game and won't want to work without them. The CCG aspect, where you could choose to collect cards, is totally optional.
Unless you want to play on Game Day, in which case you must buy two booster packs. That's the CCG aspect that's 'optional,' except when it's not. I'm signed up to run on Gamma World Game Day, and I've ben /trying/ to talk it up to fellow Gamma World fans, but the CCG aspect is a hard sell for most of them, and having to admit that it's only 'optional' if you're not playing on Game Day has made it an even harder sell. Very dissapointing.
Your hyperbolic example was disingenuous: you took my argument well outside the bounds of the discussion context in order to refute it. Your direct example was simply incorrect. If you "concretely define what you subjectively define as fun" you have chosen what you do and do not enjoy. In stating this for me, you have successfully proven my point.
No, it was not disingenuous; it was a proper use of hyperbole as rhetorical tactic (which is rarely seen on these boards). Your claim that fun can never be robbed, because fun is what you choose to enjoy, and anyone can choose to enjoy anything, is a blanket claim. It is obviously false, because when looking at such fringe examples as "horrible death" it becomes clear that only the most troubled mind could choose to find such a situation fun. Bringing the conversation back into the context of RPG games, it is not true that just because you can "concretely define what you subjectively define as fun" that you have actively made any sort of choice. All that statement means is that you are self aware of your own state of mind. Fact of the matter is, what we do or do not find fun is less a choice and more a product of past experiences that have shaped our mindsets. Asking someone to reshape their mindset for your benefit is not a reasonable request. Your mindset is not superior to theirs. Your experiences are not more valid than theirs. Which means that forcing someone to engage in something that they don't find fun, due to a mindset that they are self aware that they posses, is the equivalent of robbing of them of their fun. You are forcing someone to engage in something that they know that they don't enjoy. And while one's enjoyment or lack of enjoyment of a thing is a subjective value judgement, it is unreasonable to ask someone to change their value judgement on your behalf. This means that it is unreasonable to cause someone displeasure by asking them to engage in a process that they know does not align with their subjective frameworks. When two people simply do not have tastes that align, the only reasonable solution is that they do not attempt to play together. When buying this product, as I would not be willing to play it the way the game's rules assume it should be played, there is simply too small a portion of the game's consumers who I could reasonably play with. I neither consider it reasonable for anyone to ask me to play the game with CCG booster packs being used at the table, nor do I consider it reasonable for me to ask anyone who really likes the CCG booster packs to play without them.
To quote a better (funnier) man than I: "Some people juggle geese."
My only real issues in this thread are the gross misrepresentations by many of the anti-CCG folks in here. These arguments can be briefly but accurately summarized as "All games with collectible cards are the same!" and "CCGs and RPGs are inherently incompatible!", both of which are wildly inaccurate.
As for the issue of enjoyment and subjectiveness...
If by that you mean it was used for emphasis alone and not to be taken literally as evidence, then sure.
To be honest, though, the premise still stands, but the result is the most troubled mind. I will never find horrible death fun because I can chosen not to consider horrible death fun, and I firmly believe your mind would have to be truly effed up to think otherwise. I recognize that these are, however, all stances I have chosen. Naturally, I have no "past experience" to affect this mindset.
I understand that you feel that way, and here's why we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I believe that I am the source of my mindset and can therefore change it, whereas you believe you are a victim of circumstances, either unable to consciously affect your mindset or limited by your circumstances and past experience. Since I know my belief to be personally true (having changed my mindset, through great effort and in spite of adverse circumstances and past experience), the only conclusion that logically follows is that either you are somehow less capable than I (which evidence suggests is not at all accurate, from what I know of you) or that you cannot affect your mindset because you have have decided, consciously or unconsciously, that you cannot affect your mindset (coincidentally, having done so).
Again, you are arguing against something I have not said.
I'll be honest, I wasn't going to argue this because it wasn't related to what I said, but I'm going to pick at your word choice here a bit.
Let's say you and I were friends (or even just acquaintances) and we both played Gamma World. I love the cards and would hate to play without them. You hate the cards and love to play without them. I might not ask you to play in my campaign with cards for the very reason you list (which I do not and have not disagreed with). But if you came to me and said "Hey, I'm running a campaign without cards and I'm rounding up players and I know you hate to play without cards but it would be cool if you would join..." I would never in a million years consider that request to be unreasonable.
I am willing to accept that it could simply be the way I am.
No, it was not disingenuous; it was a proper use of hyperbole as rhetorical tactic (which is rarely seen on these boards).
If by that you mean it was used for emphasis alone and not to be taken literally as evidence, then sure.
Your claim that fun can never be robbed, because fun is what you choose to enjoy, and anyone can choose to enjoy anything, is a blanket claim. It is obviously false, because when looking at such fringe examples as "horrible death" it becomes clear that only the most troubled mind could choose to find such a situation fun.
To be honest, though, the premise still stands, but the result is the most troubled mind. I will never find horrible death fun because I can chosen not to consider horrible death fun, and I firmly believe your mind would have to be truly effed up to think otherwise. I recognize that these are, however, all stances I have chosen. Naturally, I have no "past experience" to affect this mindset.
Bringing the conversation back into the context of RPG games, it is not true that just because you can "concretely define what you subjectively define as fun" that you have actively made any sort of choice. All that statement means is that you are self aware of your own state of mind. Fact of the matter is, what we do or do not find fun is less a choice and more a product of past experiences that have shaped our mindsets.
I understand that you feel that way, and here's why we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I believe that I am the source of my mindset and can therefore change it, whereas you believe you are a victim of circumstances, either unable to consciously affect your mindset or limited by your circumstances and past experience. Since I know my belief to be personally true (having changed my mindset, through great effort and in spite of adverse circumstances and past experience), the only conclusion that logically follows is that either you are somehow less capable than I (which evidence suggests is not at all accurate, from what I know of you) or that you cannot affect your mindset because you have have decided, consciously or unconsciously, that you cannot affect your mindset (coincidentally, having done so).
Asking someone to reshape their mindset for your benefit is not a reasonable request. Your mindset is not superior to theirs. Your experiences are not more valid than theirs. Which means that forcing someone to engage in something that they don't find fun, due to a mindset that they are self aware that they posses, is the equivalent of robbing of them of their fun. You are forcing someone to engage in something that they know that they don't enjoy. And while one's enjoyment or lack of enjoyment of a thing is a subjective value judgement, it is unreasonable to ask someone to change their value judgement on your behalf.
Again, you are arguing against something I have not said.
This means that it is unreasonable to cause someone displeasure by asking them to engage in a process that they know does not align with their subjective frameworks. When two people simply do not have tastes that align, the only reasonable solution is that they do not attempt to play together. When buying this product, as I would not be willing to play it the way the game's rules assume it should be played, there is simply too small a portion of the game's consumers who I could reasonably play with. I neither consider it reasonable for anyone to ask me to play the game with CCG booster packs being used at the table, nor do I consider it reasonable for me to ask anyone who really likes the CCG booster packs to play without them.
I'll be honest, I wasn't going to argue this because it wasn't related to what I said, but I'm going to pick at your word choice here a bit.
Let's say you and I were friends (or even just acquaintances) and we both played Gamma World. I love the cards and would hate to play without them. You hate the cards and love to play without them. I might not ask you to play in my campaign with cards for the very reason you list (which I do not and have not disagreed with). But if you came to me and said "Hey, I'm running a campaign without cards and I'm rounding up players and I know you hate to play without cards but it would be cool if you would join..." I would never in a million years consider that request to be unreasonable.
I am willing to accept that it could simply be the way I am.
That's the CCG aspect that's 'optional,' except when it's not.
That's it! At last you've understood! It's not optional only in official environment. Just like with MtG. You can buy a deck play with your friends at home and CCG aspect is optional even in MtG. You want to go to the official tournament/gameday - there are rules you should obey. You play at home - you make the rules, you buy whatever you want whenever you want.
See? Completely optional if you play at home with your friend as it was intended in the first place.
That's the CCG aspect that's 'optional,' except when it's not.
That's it! At last you've understood! It's not optional only in official environment. Just like with MtG. You can buy a deck play with your friends at home and CCG aspect is optional even in MtG. You want to go to the official tournament/gameday - there are rules you should obey. You play at home - you make the rules, you buy whatever you want whenever you want.
See? Completely optional if you play at home with your friend as it was intended in the first place.
Indeed. All rules are optional if you play at home. Hell, attack rolls are optional! You can rule that players don't need to make attack rolls, they always hit when they attack. Only monsters need to make attack rolls. That way the heroes become more heroic. Thing is, that sort of "option" is disingenuous. It is not how the game assumes that it is supposed to be played. And if three people come to a table to play a game the assumption is usually that it is going to be played the way the game tells you that it is supposed to be played, unless all three people can agree on a set of house rules. Otherwise, someone is going to be at least a little unsettled by the changes. Which means that in the case of Gamma World, unless you are ok with playing the game via its self-created assumptions, it might be smarter just to skip out on purchasing this product completely.
...stuff...
We will have to agree to disagree, as we can not verify each others anecdotal evidence. I will leave this conversation with the statement that as many psychological phenomena cannot be controlled without a great deal of psychological aid, claiming that someone can reasonably up and change their own subjective state of mind seems like a silly claim to me. However, if you disagree, that is fine. I suppose the human mind is arcane enough that it is really impossible to accurately make any objective blanket claims about it one way or another.
Let's say you and I were friends (or even just acquaintances) and we both played Gamma World. I love the cards and would hate to play without them. You hate the cards and love to play without them. I might not ask you to play in my campaign with cards for the very reason you list (which I do not and have not disagreed with). But if you came to me and said "Hey, I'm running a campaign without cards and I'm rounding up players and I know you hate to play without cards but it would be cool if you would join..." I would never in a million years consider that request to be unreasonable.
That is fair. However, if I told you we were going to play a game of Gamma World, and then at the table I told you that you could not use any of the booster cards you brought because the game wasn't going to be using any booster cards without having given you prior warning of that fact, that would be unreasonable. Likewise, if I came to a game of Gamma World, and then insisted that no one could use booster cards because I don't like them, that would also be unreasonable. The situation you described is obviously far more reasonable.
However, in the situation you described, what if you were to say "that's cool, thanks man, but lets play some other game together. I really don't like playing Gamma World without my cards"? It is a very reasonable response. And yet, that still leaves me without a player. The difficulty in finding players who I can reasonably convince to play Gamma World with me, considering my own frame of mind, makes the product less appealing.
My only real issues in this thread are the gross misrepresentations by many of the anti-CCG folks in here. These arguments can be briefly but accurately summarized as "All games with collectible cards are the same!" and "CCGs and RPGs are inherently incompatible!", both of which are wildly inaccurate.
While those two blanket statements are not tenable as blanket statements, some elements of them are true. It is true that all collectible card games that balance their cards along a common (weak), uncommon (medium), and rare (powerful), distribution model result in a certain amount of imbalance. It is true that given that scenario someone with more money for boosters ends up with a more powerful character. And it is true that if someone despises that model of distribution CCGs and RPGs are inherently incompatible with their tastes. If enough people share that disposition, it is true that CCGs and RPGs are inherently incompatible from an economic standpoint, though that is a very big if, and one that is far from being proven true (if, indeed, it even is. Only time will tell).
That's the CCG aspect that's 'optional,' except when it's not.
That's it! At last you've understood! It's not optional only in official environment. Just like with MtG. You can buy a deck play with your friends at home and CCG aspect is optional even in MtG. You want to go to the official tournament/gameday - there are rules you should obey. You play at home - you make the rules, you buy whatever you want whenever you want.
See? Completely optional if you play at home with your friend as it was intended in the first place.
Indeed. All rules are optional if you play at home. Hell, attack rolls are optional! You can rule that players don't need to make attack rolls, they always hit when they attack. Only monsters need to make attack rolls. That way the heroes become more heroic. Thing is, that sort of "option" is disingenuous. It is not how the game assumes that it is supposed to be played. And if three people come to a table to play a game the assumption is usually that it is going to be played the way the game tells you that it is supposed to be played, unless all three people can agree on a set of house rules. Otherwise, someone is going to be at least a little unsettled by the changes. Which means that in the case of Gamma World, unless you are ok with playing the game via its self-created assumptions, it might be smarter just to skip out on purchasing this product completely.
You wanna say GW is supposed to be played with a deck for every player and each of them should buy 2 booster packs every session? I can hardly belive it.
Organized play is not always the same as home environment. And it's certainly not the only right way to play. There are plenty of proofs in RPGA (2, 3.5 or 4 edition times) or in DCI if we compare those rules with the way we play at home (without any homerules, mind you). Usually it's organized play changes the rules to suit the unusual game environment.
I'm guessing that's an overly optimistic assumption on WotC's part, motivated by the margin they enjoy with CCGs... ;)
I agree. Based on the general attitude that I have seen many gamers express, I am guessing that Gamma World is going to end up alienating way too many players via its booster packs. Those that play will often find themselves playing in groups that disallow the boosters; many won't buy this product at all. Time will tell just how badly this CCG aspect will alienate potential customers. Personally, I think it is a really bad sign for this game that many d20 Modern vets, Gamma World vets, 4e vets, and vets of all three, are turning up their noses at this product as a result of its CCG aspect. People like me and Mecha Pilot really should have been first in line to buy a product like this. And yet, people like me and Mecha Pilot won't end up purchasing this product at all instead... time will tell just how many people like me and Mecha Pilot are really out there.
Well, I guess I would have been third in line. I'm off to pick up my advance copy.... ;)
Enjoy. Let me know if your latest booster pack nets you that card you wanted...
The game assumes that you play with each player having his own deck[s] composed of booster packs.
Wrong. Peeps who have the box say it's written that they may use their decks. Besides whever you use your own deck or not, sometimes you draw from your deck and sometimes from GM's deck. That's how rules dictate it.
I'm guessing that's an overly optimistic assumption on WotC's part, motivated by the margin they enjoy with CCGs... ;)
I agree. Based on the general attitude that I have seen many gamers express, I am guessing that Gamma World is going to end up alienating way too many players via its booster packs. Those that play will often find themselves playing in groups that disallow the boosters; many won't buy this product at all. Time will tell just how badly this CCG aspect will alienate potential customers. Personally, I think it is a really bad sign for this game that many d20 Modern vets, Gamma World vets, 4e vets, and vets of all three, are turning up their noses at this product as a result of its CCG aspect. People like me and Mecha Pilot really should have been first in line to buy a product like this. And yet, people like me and Mecha Pilot won't end up purchasing this product at all instead... time will tell just how many people like me and Mecha Pilot are really out there.
Ha. If wishes were fishes...
The game assumes that you play with each player having his own deck[s] composed of booster packs.
Wrong. Peeps who have the box say it's written that they may use their decks. Besides whever you use your own deck or not, sometimes you draw from your deck and sometimes from GM's deck. That's how rules dictate it.
Correct. You may use your deck. And anyone who doesn't have one is at a disadvantage compared to someone who does, because they don't get that option. Which means that the game really assumes that people will have their own deck... unless they want to choose the option of playing with a handicap, which isn't really an option at all.
I'm guessing that's an overly optimistic assumption on WotC's part, motivated by the margin they enjoy with CCGs... ;)
I agree. Based on the general attitude that I have seen many gamers express, I am guessing that Gamma World is going to end up alienating way too many players via its booster packs. Those that play will often find themselves playing in groups that disallow the boosters; many won't buy this product at all. Time will tell just how badly this CCG aspect will alienate potential customers. Personally, I think it is a really bad sign for this game that many d20 Modern vets, Gamma World vets, 4e vets, and vets of all three, are turning up their noses at this product as a result of its CCG aspect. People like me and Mecha Pilot really should have been first in line to buy a product like this. And yet, people like me and Mecha Pilot won't end up purchasing this product at all instead... time will tell just how many people like me and Mecha Pilot are really out there.
Ha. If wishes were fishes...
So you so. Time will tell. Recent marketing data suggests you are probably wrong. Like it or not, the "grognard" crowd is large enough hat 4e D&D is no longer the leading market share in the RPG market. While I disagree with most of their sentiments, they tend to agree with me on this sentiment. I think you would be surprised at how many people out there just hate the idea of a CCG in their RPG.
The bosters are not so much explicitly 'optional' as they are something you are expected to use, but could get by without. The rules generally read something like, "draw X cards from your alpha/omega deck, if you don't have a deck, draw from the DM's." Boosters are mentioned more than once, and both the player and DM are told they can use boosters to add to and customize thier decks. Explicitly optional would be something more like "Apendex D: Player Decks," with the rest of the book never even mentioning boosters. But, yes, you can play the game without boosters. You'll only have 30 mutations compared to the original game's hundred or so, but you can do it.
The rules for using decks are a little odd, and reminiscent of M:tG (you 'tap' a card by turning it sideways to show that it's been used, for instance). You draw Alpha cards (1-3, depending on your level) at the start of the session, and after each short rest. If you run out of cards from your deck, you do draw from the DM's. The DM's deck refreshes when it runs out. Player decks refresh after a extended rest - or, this is the kicker - between sessions. In weekly organized play, you won't really have to worry about going through your deck, because a session is unlikely to be more than an encounter or two.
Playes can have and cutomize both Alpha (mutation) and Omega (tech) decks. The Omega deck, though, /does/ represent stuff you FIND, making player customization frankly absurd - yes, absurd even by GW standards! (I suppose you could stretch the 'collapsed realities' point a bit, and claim that such PCs have some sort of conection to this or that semi-separate reality from which gear 'leaks' for them to find, but the game makes no such claim). The GM is rather dismissively given the option of placing specific items for players to find, as well.
The card mechanics and the GM deck are certainly something you could work with. The GM deck is 1/3rd of the available cards (60, 30 each Alpha & Omega) the other 120 cards are currently available only as boosters. Even if the rest of the set were sold for the $40 cost of the 'complete' game, it'd be a steal compared to the cost of boosters.
So, WotC: not kidding here, sell complete decks.
Also, the option of creating custom mutations and tech is mentioned, but there are no blank cards.
So, WotC: release a deck of blank cards, too. We could improvise blank cards, but it'd be nice to have matching backs, so players looking at the DM deck don't know they're getting a custom card.
That's it for now...
Players don't always draw from their own Omega Tech decks (if they have one). There is a roll to determine if they draw from theirs or the DM's. So anyone that brings their own cards isn't guaranteed to be drawing from their deck. Decks stacked with rare equipment aren't necessarily game breaking.
Additional: I've been looking through the 30 Omega Tech cards in the boxed set and they make it very clear that the stuff in boosters will be better. The names alone say it: cracked ray gun, leaky fusion rifle, unstable vibroblade, etc...
There is no roll for drawing from your Alpha Deck. But, when there's an Alpha Flux, you draw a replacement card from the GM's deck. So building an Alpha Deck is a powerful, dependable strategy. This mechanic makes a lot more sense, though. You can build a player deck (from the cards in the box, or from boosters - or from a future complete deck product that WotC had damn well better offer eventually) that fits your character's origins and creates a sort of 'theme' that further defines it. Instead of having totally random mutations every encounter, you have a number of apropriate/desireable mutations that you simply have unreliable access to. Durring Alplha Flux (radiation exposure, reality instability, whatever) you can temporarily pick up a random mutation/defect (DM deck).
So, first to the most important question. Is it fun(ha! thought i was going to talk about the cards! More on that later.) The answer is YES!! The randomness was loved by my group but i can see how some may not like it. Even my players were starting to get tired of changing our Alphas everytime we used them by the end of the session.
I am glad to say that the game plays great with just the cards that are included. NONE of us are going to go and buy a box or two and try to collect a set. Also, none of my players want to make a chracter deck. EVERYONE is more than happy playing with what we have. True, i may buy a few packs on an impulse, but that is what i think WOTC's marketing plan is. I do not think that they were planning on the majority of players rushing out to buy stacks of cards so they could have a character with tons of nasty powers.
I think that maybe 2% of players may get int the CCG aspect and go for the set or try to make killer character. If thats what turns your crank so beit, Have fun.
I do not think we will see any more sets of cards in boosters in the future. They are just not going to sell. I think that GW will get a strong enough following that we may see 2-3 expansions a year and I think that more cards will come but as complete sets.
I highly suggest that people should try this and do not worry about the cards. We had a great time .
I think that maybe 2% of players may get int the CCG aspect and go for the set or try to make killer character. If thats what turns your crank so beit, Have fun.
As a GM, I would hate to have just one guy at my table like that. The CCG bit is OK if everyone's into it, but I can't see a split table working too well. At organized play I'll take what I get, regardless, but when I run, it'll be all or nothing. If even one player doesn't have a deck, no player decks. (Though, I might go for one early misconception as a house rule and allow a communal player deck....)
Another variant I was considering was persistent mutations:
The first 8 times you draw an Alpha card, you keep the card (or have the option of keeping the card, maybe). Once you've reached 8 Alpha cards, that's your player deck until that character dies. That would give each character a unique set of mutations. With only the 30 cards in the box, though, that'd only work for less than 4 players... Have to wait for a 'complete Alpha Deck' product for it to work well.
Similarly, I could institute a 'you break it, you keep it' rule: when a character fails an Omega charge roll, he retains the card and builds it into his Omega deck. When he 'draws it from his Omega Deck' he doesn't find the same item again, he finds a power cell or jurry rig part or cellphone charger or something that gets it running again. Yeah, that'd actually make some sense.
The first 8 times you draw an Alpha card, you keep the card (or have the option of keeping the card, maybe). Once you've reached 8 Alpha cards, that's your player deck until that character dies. That would give each character a unique set of mutations. With only the 30 cards in the box, though, that'd only work for less than 4 players... Have to wait for a 'complete Alpha Deck' product for it to work well.
Similarly, when a character fails an Omega charge roll, he retains the card and builds it into his Omega deck. When he 'draws it from his Omega Deck' he doesn't find the same item again, he finds a power cell or jurry rig part that gets it running again. Yeah, that'd actually make some sense.
Great ideas I should say.
Sorry i meant 2% of Play groups as apposed to actual players. Most groups have a consensual play style. Most groups will decide if they want to build decks or not.
I am thinking about Buying a box and letting my players draft a play deck based on the origins . i think it may be interesting.
does any of this matter if you run innto a jerk powergamer witht he best deck, no...but atleast you can see the intent
Well in todays pod cast Mike mearls talks about the cards in gama world, and how you can play with just the box set. He then goes on to mention how he heard people on the message boards where missunderstanding, and that collecting the cards to build a theme or power house deack of your own is against the spirit of the randomness of the game...
does any of this matter if you run innto a jerk powergamer witht he best deck, no...but atleast you can see the intent
Considering that character creation is entirely random... is there really a way to build a powerdeck?
(edit: listened to the podcast, myself - didn't help. He actually said 'tuned' deck.
)The GW book doesn't exactly spell out that the boosters are optional - and they're not on Game Day - but it does make it very clear that if you are without a player deck (and your player deck /can/ run out of cards in a long adventuring day) you draw from the DM deck. The book mentions or recomends that a player can fill his decks with things he thinks 'fit' his character, and the DM can salt his decks to fit the Theme of an adventure locale. For instance, if the party is exploring a crashed greys saucer, the DM might fill his decks with Area52 and Psi cards, to represent the ship is full of alien tech and resonating with psychic energy.
Of course, the guy exploring the space ship who has his player Deck full of Ishtaran weapons will still inexplicably find them in the saucer...
He then goes on to mention how he heard people on the message boards where missunderstanding...
What is it we are misunderstanding???
CCG aspects that are clearly better than what comes in the box, based on what we have been told, are not meant to be bought?
Where did they say that the boosters are better than what comes in the box?
I cannot understand how anyone can take anything he says at face value. It's usually contradictory doublespeak.
So no matter what he says, you won't believe it?
In other words, there is no way to please you?
So no matter what he says, you won't believe it?
Mearls has proven himself time and again to speak out of both sides of his face. I most likely would not believe him if he said the sky is blue.
Tony sad about a week ago when he recieved his advance box that most of the "tech" cards that come in the box say things like barely working, or busted, or low power. It's fairly clear that they are less powerful than the "rare cards" to come.
so if all the alpha tech in the boosters say the same thing buste, or low power, or barely working... then this will end the arguement right??
So no matter what he says, you won't believe it?
Mearls has proven himself time and again to speak out of both sides of his face. I most likely would not believe him if he said the sky is blue.
Tony sad about a week ago when he recieved his advance box that most of the "tech" cards that come in the box say things like barely working, or busted, or low power. It's fairly clear that they are less powerful than the "rare cards" to come.
so if all the alpha tech in the boosters say the same thing buste, or low power, or barely working... then this will end the arguement right??
Of course it won't. It's quite clear that Dragonbane has stuffed his fingers in his ears. He won't listen to anything Mearls says, even if it's true. It kinda makes disscussion pointless, really.
Well in todays pod cast Mike mearls talks about the cards in gama world, and how you can play with just the box set. He then goes on to mention how he heard people on the message boards where missunderstanding, and that collecting the cards to build a theme or power house deack of your own is against the spirit of the randomness of the game...
does any of this matter if you run innto a jerk powergamer witht he best deck, no...but atleast you can see the intent
Thing is, intent matters a whole lot less than practice. I could care less what the "intent" of these rules is. The fact is, being a "jerk powergamer" (or just someone with a large disposable income and a love of collecting) and building the best deck will give you an edge over everyone else. Thing is, if you have a character concept in mind, and you are looking to collect a bunch of rare cards that fit you with your concept, you will have to spend ridiculous amounts of cash to get the rules you want (because the rules can't be bought in fixed product releases). Fact is, whatever Mike says about the "intent" of these rules, their practice turns me off enough that I don't plan to buy this game...
The cards are fail in my book. I'll stick to older versions of Gamma.
Intent is fine and all, but hoping that people won't stack their decks is a pipe dream.
Input from Mike Krahulik, a.k.a. Gabe: www.penny-arcade.com/2010/10/13/
You know, I just read Gabe's input, and it is a load of bologna. Gabe writes:
I’ve seen this sentiment echoed in other places as well. People seem to think that Gamma World is a CCG and that’s simply not the case. You do not ever need to buy a booster pack to play the game. Like I said it comes with two decks full of mutations and tech cards. If you decide that you would like to build your own decks to draw from then yes, you can go and purchase booster packs. You are not at a disadvantage if you don’t though because this is not a competitive game.In MTG you are pitting your deck against your opponents. If you don’t buy booster packs you don’t have a deck and that will making winning very difficult. In Gamma World you are playing with your friends and against the DM who does not get to draw any cards. The cards are just for fun and to help you kick the **** out of whatever the DM throws at you. When I ran the game I didn’t even tell my players about booster packs until after the first encounter. We played with them drawing from the two decks that came with the box and they all loved it. Then I handed each of them a booster pack and explained that if they wanted to they could go get more and build their own decks. Will any of them do it? I have no idea and honestly it doesn’t matter. This isn’t a CCG.
Those bolded lines are wonderful sentiment. They are also totally fallacious. It is not true that the game is not competitive. What is true is that the game does not involve direct competition between two players. However, every player in the game is competing against the challenges that the GM (or DM) throws at them. Those with more powerful decks will have an advantage against those challenges. And it is not true that that advantage is not detrimental to the fun of the game. One of the biggest complaints about 3e was the horrible imbalance between classes. GW revives that imbalance, but instead of drawing the lines across class choices it draw the line across its player's real life disposable incomes. Just as other RPGs, in the past, have suffered from one character at the table being well and above the power curve of other players at the table, GW will suffer from one character at the table having a larger disposable income than other players at the table. This is the first time that has ever been true of an RPG, because usually one character's disposable income provides extra options to all characters at the table. However, only you can use the deck you have built in GW. Any time you allow someone else to use your deck, that results in a card, and option, being drawn that you no longer have a chance of drawing; and it involves a house rule, because the game does not assume that you can draw from the decks of other players. So, what happens when mr. disposable income sits at a table with mr. can't afford to buy a single booster? What happens is that the challenges either end up being super easy for mr. disposable income, who overshadows everyone else at the table, and makes them feel like sidekicks, it becomes too hard for mr. can't afford to buy a single booster, who ends up dying over and over, and probably stops having fun, or it lives in some middle ground that is both too hard for mr. can't afford to buy a single booster and too easy for mr. disposable income. Gabe's conclusion isn't based on logic, but conviction. He is stating what he wants to believe, not what the game's mechanics logically dictate the likely outcome to be.
That, by the way, becomes evident when he claims that Gamma World is not a CCG. A CCG is a game that makes use of collectible cards. Collectible cards are randomized cards released in booster packs with a rarity system. Gamma World is a game that makes use of cards released in randomized booster packs with a rarity system. Gamma World IS a CCG. What it isn't is the same CCG as Magic. Unlike a game like Magic, Gamma World is ALSO an RPG. But, its state as an RPG doesn't make it any less of a CCG. And unfortunately, while I love RPGs, I hate CCGs, whether they are exactly the same as Magic or not.
So, I call shenanigans on "Gabe's" input. The man either doesn't know what he is talking about, or, which I believe is more likely the case, he isn't interested in admitting the obvious. Gamma World is a game that can only be appealing to those who either a) don't mind limiting their player base by insisting that they will only play with a group of people who are wiling to use a particular house rule or b) who are not bothered by the CCG aspects GW introduces to its RPG qualities.
WTF is that? I didn't format my text that way...
It is computer generated poetry settings, that is what...
So, how much longer are we keeping this going, Cyber-Dave? I'm going to let you in on a little secret: after February, Gamma World isn't going to be supported anymore. At best, your nightmare of combining two entertaining pastimes will not last long with Gamma World, but may be used as a testing ground for other games, perhaps 5th Edition. Are you going to keep tilting at windmills forever? They say the price of stagnation is eternal vigilance against new ideas...
Your analogy is terrible. Don Quixote didn't know what he was doing. I do. I am not purchasing a product due to an element I don't like. I don't think I am engaging in some grand quest as a result, I don't think these posts are jousts, nor do I think I am saving the gaming industry with my valorous good deeds. I am simply looking out for my own interests. I have no idea whether my purchasing habits will have an affect or not. However, this sort of feedback, coupled with a product line's poor sales, has had an affect in the past. Look at the complaints people made about 3e. When 3e sales waned we got 4e as a result. Look at the complaints people made about 4e. When 4e's market share suffered they got Essentials as a result. The task I have set out to perform is not impossible to succeed at. I am not tilting against windmills.
I doubt my complaints will have any affect on Gamma World (though it would be nice to see complete non-randomized decks get released for Gamma World, at which point in time I would purchase the game). However, it is far from unlikely that my course of action will affect what WotC decides to do with future D&D products, perhaps resulting in such a CCG element not being added to the Ravenloft RPG or 5e D&D. But here is the real kicker, it doesn't matter whether it has my desired affect or not, I still won't purchase any product that includes such a CCG element (be it Ravenloft, 5e, or whatever else). Thing is, I really don't like CCGs. I don't find them to be entertaining pastimes. I liken their experience to tasting fecal matter. I am not interested in tasting fecal matter. So I am not interested in buying an RPG that includes a CCG element. And the best part is, by not buying such a product I get to save my money for something I actually like.
Your claim that I am against new ideas is also false. I wholeheartedly support 4e. It is my favorite edition of D&D to date. I like Essentials. I like many new things. But just because a thing is new doesn't mean it is better. Many terrible things were at one point in time new. I know my own likes and dislikes enough to know that I don't like CCGs. The "new idea" of adding CCG elements to an RPG doesn't strike me as a good idea. It strikes me as a terrible idea. I see no reason to support it just because it is new. That doesn't mean I don't support new things. It means I don't support this new thing. Not supporting one new thing doesn't lead to stagnation. It leads to controlled growth. In this case, controlled to grow into a product I can enjoy.
But you know that. And yet here you are trying to rouse me into buying a product you like despite the fact that I don't like CCGs; here you are trying to perform an impossible task. And, while you are doing it, you are pretending that you are saving the RPG genre by doing so; you think you are acting as the protector of growth, the great knight who fights against those who would keep an "eternal vigilance against new ideas," when in fact you are just trying to convince someone to like something that they don't. Ironic. You know, there is an old book about a protagonist who tried to do something like that. Guess what that protagonist's name was?
So no matter what he says, you won't believe it?
Mearls has proven himself time and again to speak out of both sides of his face. I most likely would not believe him if he said the sky is blue.
Tony sad about a week ago when he recieved his advance box that most of the "tech" cards that come in the box say things like barely working, or busted, or low power. It's fairly clear that they are less powerful than the "rare cards" to come.
so if all the alpha tech in the boosters say the same thing buste, or low power, or barely working... then this will end the arguement right??
Of course it won't. It's quite clear that Dragonbane has stuffed his fingers in his ears. He won't listen to anything Mearls says, even if it's true. It kinda makes disscussion pointless, really.
Here's what the Omega Tech cards from the 'Atom' booster series look like. The common ones are at least a little better than the ones that came in the game, some are basically the same item as the GM deck, just a bit better. The Rares get pretty crazy, as you might expect, though nothing that stacks up to the old 1e Black Ray Pistol, Trek Bomb or Powered Assault Armor - they do stick to the 4e policy of avoiding instant-death effects.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Not that it should come as a surprise or anything.
BTW, I withdraw one of my objections to the CCG aspect. I've repeatedly said that it's a woefully inefficient way of acquiring content (compared to a regular suplement in book form). I reckoned not with the CCG community. Apparently, within days of a card set hitting the stores, all the text content of those cards will be plastered all over the internet.
BTW, I withdraw one of my objections to the CCG aspect. I've repeatedly said that it's a woefully inefficient way of acquiring content (compared to a regular suplement in book form). I reckoned not with the CCG community. Apparently, within days of a card set hitting the stores, all the text content of those cards will be plastered all over the internet.
It's still a bad way of distributing content because I won't buy it and therefore won't support WotC in making the game. Additionally it is annoying to use the content that was uploaded. Sure I can make my own card but they I'll need to print the original box cards that way as well. Since I don't like the randomness of the game it is kinda a moot point. While I might play it according to the rules for a little bit, I'll probably heavily customize it if I do any extended amount of play.
Your analogy is terrible. Don Quixote didn't know what he was doing. I do.
Exactly. Because people who don't know what they doing KNOW that they don't know what they're doing. And if you know that you DO know what you're doing, then obviously you do know what you're doing. You know?
I don't think I am engaging in some grand quest as a result, I don't think these posts are jousts, nor do I think I am saving the gaming industry with my valorous good deeds. I am simply looking out for my own interests. I have no idea whether my purchasing habits will have an affect or not.
Well, THAT'S a relief! I mean, I was worried that you were taking this beyond one man's dislike of a game system and trying to change the world, but you're clearly just...
However, this sort of feedback, coupled with a product line's poor sales, has had an affect in the past. Look at the complaints people made about 3e. When 3e sales waned we got 4e as a result. Look at the complaints people made about 4e. When 4e's market share suffered they got Essentials as a result. The task I have set out to perform is not impossible to succeed at.
...
I'm sorry. I lost my train of thought there. What? Naw, I'm just reading too much in one sentence.
I doubt my complaints will have any affect on Gamma World (though it would be nice to see complete non-randomized decks get released for Gamma World, at which point in time I would purchase the game).
There we go! Like I said! Just an average gamer voicing his displeasure with no visions of grandeur that he...
However, it is far from unlikely that my course of action will affect what WotC decides to do with future D&D products, perhaps resulting in such a CCG element not being added to the Ravenloft RPG or 5e D&D.
...
*re-reads it.*
...
So... are you looking for an acknowledgement in the 5ed PHB, or... Nevermind! Move on!
here you are trying to perform an impossible task.
Consistency? Humility? To play a game of Magic: The Gathering without getting that nasty poop breath?
And, while you are doing it, you are pretending that you are saving the RPG genre by doing so; you think you are acting as the protector of growth, the great knight who fights against those who would keep an "eternal vigilance against new ideas," when in fact you are just trying to convince someone to like something that they don't. Ironic.
I checked with both the dictionary and Alanis Morisette, and they both said that wasn't irony. Getting someone to acknowledge that the combination of two popular forms of gaming is not intrinsically wrong by definition is promoting growth, both in the games we play and the gamers who play.
As someone who owns the GW game, I do think that the CCG aspect does add a layer of interest to the game that a random table would not. That is only my opinion as of now, and I'll need to play the game more to get a better understanding. Care to join me?
So like I said a week ago. The "rare" cards are clearly better than the GM deck, that comes with the box.
CCG, not interested. I hope it flops so that I don't have to do this again with the next board game.
I hope that it does extremely well so these irrational fears of CCG can become founded.
So, my FLGS actually had a better turnout for Gamma World Game Day than it did for Red Box Game Day, in spite of the $8 entry fee. Not sure how to take that, really. (...)
It means that "boycott" went exactly as expected
So, my FLGS actually had a better turnout for Gamma World Game Day than it did for Red Box Game Day, in spite of the $8 entry fee.
normaly we have 3 tables max for game days...well 1 table as mornning, afternoon, and evening ...for DnD game days I have never had a problem getting into one.
I could not play gamma world game day becuse 3 table times all filled up... but the guy who runs it is a friend and he was going to run one on sunday for us... but they sold out of gamma world box sets so he could not buy one to run it. As of last night when I stoped in the owner told me it was the best game day they ever did for profit...
So, my FLGS actually had a better turnout for Gamma World Game Day than it did for Red Box Game Day, in spite of the $8 entry fee.
normaly we have 3 tables max for game days...well 1 table as mornning, afternoon, and evening ...for DnD game days I have never had a problem getting into one.
I could not play gamma world game day becuse 3 table times all filled up... but the guy who runs it is a friend and he was going to run one on sunday for us... but they sold out of gamma world box sets so he could not buy one to run it. As of last night when I stoped in the owner told me it was the best game day they ever did for profit...
If that is true of game stores everywhere, this is the month WotC based RPGs died. All hail the CCRPG. Guess I won't be buying WotC products anymore (once they start implementing such card based mechanics into their other games). Ah well, if this is what the masses actually want, I can't fault WotC for catering to them. Profit makes the world go round. I guess I am just going to have to look for companies that cater to fringe consumer groups who, like me, don't like CCG facets in their RPG products. It will be pretty funny if down the road such "fringe products" end up tieing WotC products for first place in RPG market shares (the way, it seems, Pathfinder just did). *shrug*
If that is true of game stores everywhere, this is the month WotC based RPGs died. All hail the CCRPG. Guess I won't be buying WotC products anymore (once they start implementing such card based mechanics into their other games). Ah well, if this is what the masses actually want,
wow over react much... I mean really... even if every gameing store was the same (witch I am sure they were not) It would at best show that people will try new things...
No one will but rules in booster packs... now magic items and add on powers maybe.
I doubt this is a blow against RPGs as PnP games. It may be a move in a new direction though.
Gamma world had a big push around here (one that shocked the heck out of me... who still hasn't got to even demo it)
The owner of my FLGS did say he thought it would be cool if he paid a bit for the right to run DnD game days, got mroe stuff (free mini ect like the first few) and could charge for it then...
I know if I got a pc mini, a D20, something like the folder, or box...I would pay 5$ to play...
On the other hand, Gamma World rocks. My players actively tried to get themselves killed doing all kinds of wacky things so they could make up a new character.
Yup, I can see it now. D&D 5E will feature collectable cards. You'll need to purchase booster packs to get the powers you want and just to make it better they will be random so you'll never know what you're getting. If you want to play a fighter you'll have to purchase multiple packs in hopes of getting all the right powers to play one. It is the end of the game as we know it.
On the other hand, Gamma World rocks. My players actively tried to get themselves killed doing all kinds of wacky things so they could make up a new character.
Despite your hyperbole, despite your attempt to belittle my argument, there is quite a bit of merit to it. WotC has a habit of using side projects as a testbed for their D&D line. We have seen this happen over and over and over again. Will D&D 5e have fighter powers in random decks? No, probably not. That is what we call hyperbole. And it isn't a proper use of hyperbole. Unlike a proper use of hyperbole, your use is just poor rhetoric. It doesn't undercut my position, nor does it strengthen yours. It does not use exaggeration to strengthen your argument, it just uses exaggeration for the sake of exaggerating. On the other hand, what WotC might add in future editions of D&D, should the mechanic prove profitable, is "a little healthy randomization" to the game by making item decks, where players build their wish-lists via packs of randomized boosters, and then draw loot from their item deck. And that is exactly the sort of mechanic that will convince me to start buying products from a different company.
In any case, I am glad you guys are enjoying Gamma World. I wish I could find a Fallout style, currently supported, mechanically up to date, post-apocalyptic PnP RPG that suits my tastes. Unfortunately, CCRPGs just don't do it for me. If I ever want to run such a game I will probably just use a modified version of the Star Wars Saga rules to run a d20 Modern/Post-Apocalyptic style game.
should the mechanic prove profitable, is "a little healthy randomization" to the game by making item decks, where players build their wish-lists via packs of randomized boosters, and then draw loot from their item deck.
that sounds awsome... imagin you build a 18-20 card deck with up to 8 uncommon cards, and up to 15 common cards... the DM must approve each item, then when you get a treasure parcel it is a random draw. Then you can only change the deck every other level...
not my normal way of doing it... but I might run a short series of adventures with something like this...
It doesn't undercut my position, nor does it strengthen yours. It does not use exaggeration to strengthen your argument, it just uses exaggeration for the sake of exaggerating.
Oh good, I wasn't sure that was coming through. Good to know that it did.
The way I look at it, if they come out with a D&D game I do not want to play, then I will not play it. Hasn't happened yet, but I won't say it won't happen. I'm not going to worry otherwise.
should the mechanic prove profitable, is "a little healthy randomization" to the game by making item decks, where players build their wish-lists via packs of randomized boosters, and then draw loot from their item deck.
that sounds awsome... imagin you build a 18-20 card deck with up to 8 uncommon cards, and up to 15 common cards... the DM must approve each item, then when you get a treasure parcel it is a random draw. Then you can only change the deck every other level...
not my normal way of doing it... but I might run a short series of adventures with something like this...
Considering your input on this thread, it doesn't surprise me that you would like a mechanic like that. It also doesn't bother me. But your like of that mechanic doesn't change the fact that WotC will never be able to convince me to play, or (more importantly) buy, a product with those mechanics.
It doesn't undercut my position, nor does it strengthen yours. It does not use exaggeration to strengthen your argument, it just uses exaggeration for the sake of exaggerating.
Oh good, I wasn't sure that was coming through. Good to know that it did.
The way I look at it, if they come out with a D&D game I do not want to play, then I will not play it. Hasn't happened yet, but I won't say it won't happen. I'm not going to worry otherwise.
So you use exaggeration when it does nothing but make your posts look silly, and you don't feel the need to care about the mechanics of the RPGs that WotC produces until it is too late for your input to affect those products in a manner that you consider positive. Awesome. Good for you. Personally, I prefer using rhetorical tactics when they can serve my arguments some purpose, and I prefer to give input when that input might actually serve me some benefit in the long run. We are obviously very different people.
So you use exaggeration when it does nothing but make your posts look silly, and you don't feel the need to care about the mechanics of the RPGs that WotC produces until it is too late for your input to affect those products in a manner that you consider positive. Awesome. Good for you. Personally, I prefer using rhetorical tactics when they can serve my arguments some purpose, and I prefer to give input when that input might actually serve me some benefit in the long run. We are obviously very different people.
I never worry about looking silly. I pretty much figure it's a done deal most of the time. At 43 I'm pretty much a take me as you see me kind of guy and gone beyond worrying about what others think of me.
The only thing that will change WotC's mind at this point and the point you started this movement is actual sales. If the game does well they will continue on, if not then they will re-evaluate. A few people disliking the collectible card mechanic is not going to sway them one way or another. Especially when the cards are nothing close to the level of MtG in value, which is possibly the only way that this will ever become an issue. Considering that MtG is still selling better than D&D I don't see that becoming an issue. You never know, though, maybe Gamma World will become their best selling game.
The cards are only one aspect of the game. A cooperative game at that. Will you have those that must have all the cards? Of course. Is it going to affect game-play detrimentally? Nope, not in any significant way. In a game like MtG where the cards are the focus, it certainly can, but in Gamma World they are just extra flavour. Dislike the card mechanic or their cost and I can understand that, but please don't try to tell me that the game will have the same issues as MtG because it is just not true.
There is no massive imbalance because of the collectable card mechanic. Complain all you want about their cost but don't try to blow smoke up my ass telling me there is some fairy tale imbalance, because there is not one.
Uh hu. You can keep telling yourself that. You can keep telling yourself that the cards found in the booster packs do not tend to be more powerful than what comes in the box (despite objective evidence to the contrary.) You can keep telling yourself that someone who does not buy many packs of booster cards doesn't end up with a more powerful set of decks than someone who doesn't. You can keep telling yourself that someone who buys the boosters doesn't end up with a more powerful character than someone who doesn't. You can keep telling yourself that this game doesn't create a power divide amongst its players whose boundary is their real world economic capabilities. But, no matter how long you keep telling yourself those lies, they will never become truths...
There is no massive imbalance because of the collectable card mechanic. Complain all you want about their cost but don't try to blow smoke up my ass telling me there is some fairy tale imbalance, because there is not one.
Uh hu. You can keep telling yourself that. You can keep telling yourself that the cards found in the booster packs do not tend to be more powerful than what comes in the box (despite objective evidence to the contrary.) You can keep telling yourself that someone who does not buy many packs of booster cards doesn't end up with a more powerful set of decks than someone who doesn't. You can keep telling yourself that someone who buys the boosters doesn't end up with a more powerful character than someone who doesn't. You can keep telling yourself that this game doesn't create a power divide amongst its players whose boundary is their real world economic capabilities. But, no matter how long you keep telling yourself those lies, they will never become truths...
And you know this from actual play experience?
Watching someone play the game?
Looking at a real card?
In 2000, people thought that Dwarf Rogue 1 / Monk X would be the best PC combination for 3ed, based on faulty assumptions of what was overpowered for the system. 10 years later, not so much...
I suspect, from the way organized play is shaping up at my FLGS, I'll get a good example of exactly how it plays with some players using essentially random player decks and one or more others 'building' decks selectively (one player is already searching for a 2nd Mini-Tank, for instance).
But, I don't really need that test case to know how it works. I've gamed for a long time, and I know what happens when one player has some more potent options than others. It's not pretty - but the DM can limit the damage. I've kept campaigns workable in the face of even more poorly-balanced systems over the years. Ultimately, outside of organized play, I'll handle player decks in ways that don't reward buying boosters.
BTW, WotC: publish complete card sets, and some blank cards...
OK, let’s get this one out of the way right at the start: Why introduce a card component into the Gamma World RPG? Well, the short answer is that we think it makes your game better and gives you a brand-new set of tools to play with. We can offer you options in this format that would be hard to do with a different approach because the medium of cards lets us try things with game play and character abilities we just couldn’t do with a different mechanism. For example, finding tech in Gamma World is a lot like finding magical items in D&D. By treating items of advanced tech as “cards,” you can randomly determine what’s found by a simple draw rather than rolling on a chart or trying to stock an adventure with things your characters might want—and you can hand that card to a player and say, “Now you have this!” Many D&D DMs already encourage their players to provide wish lists of items they’d like their characters to find someday. Once you start doing something like that, it’s not much of a leap for a player to provide his own wish list in the form of his own deck of tech items he wants to find.
Thats cool. If they do, it will just mean that 4e is the last edition of D&D I purchase from WotC. Considering how much I like 4e, that might not be a bad thing...
So, the following paragraph from a recent DDi article strongly suggests that they are thinking about using the card mechanic for magic items in future editions of D&D:
Thats cool. If they do, it will just mean that 4e is the last edition of D&D I purchase from WotC. Considering how much I like 4e, that might not be a bad thing...
No, it just says that finding Gamma Tech is a lot like finding magic items in D&D and that creating your own deck is like providing the DM with a magic item wishlist.
Waaay to draw farfetched conclussions and see what you want to see, mate.
So, the following paragraph from a recent DDi article strongly suggests that they are thinking about using the card mechanic for magic items in future editions of D&D:
Thats cool. If they do, it will just mean that 4e is the last edition of D&D I purchase from WotC. Considering how much I like 4e, that might not be a bad thing...
No, it just says that finding Gamma Tech is a lot like finding magic items in D&D and that creating your own deck is like providing the DM with a magic item wishlist.
Waaay to draw farfetched conclussions and see what you want to see, mate.
No. What it is is a paragraph in which they talk about how the Gamma World tech isn't so different from random treasure distribution in D&D, and is the next logical step that the game can (read: should) make. Does it prove that they will do this with D&D? Absolutely not. But it does suggest that they are thinking about implementing this mechanic in the D&D line/using Gamma World to test the waters for future editions of D&D; this is especially true when you consider the fact that WotC has set a historic and verifiable precedent of using side games to test mechanics for the D&D brand line.
What is more, considering how spot on my predictions have been so far, all I can do is laugh at you. This is another case of me having very strong evidence to support my case, and being opposed by people attempting to defend WotC at any cost, no matter how untenable their defense might be. Guess what, every other time I made a prediction in regards to the Gamma World cards people did the same thing. They talked about my "far-fetched conclusions." Except, Omega Tech and Gamma Tech decks work exactly how I said I believed they would based on what WotC was saying. So, no offense, pardon me if I treat your casual dismissal of such paragraphs with disdain...
What it is is a paragraph in which they talk about how the Gamma World tech isn't so different from random treasure distribution in D&D (...)
This is the only thing there is in this short quotation of yours. There is no suggestion of cards for D&D, it's more like an explanation for how do cards in Gamma World work to a D&D player. The thing about "the next logical step" and the rest is a fabrication of yours.
You may laugh, but in this case saying that proves WotC wants to implement cards in D&D is a very far-fetched conclusion. I'm not defending WotC here. I'm attacking far-fetched conclusions and reading too much from simple similes.
I haven't been reading this thread, but if you want me convinced, please quote your earlier posts of your "spot on predictions" with accompaning WotC statements about the issue and/or rules snippets. Please.
Lets take a look at post number 12 in this thread. Alter_Boy tells us that the cards are not going to be released in randomized booster, contrary to my claims. Guess who was right? When I said that based on the information provided it was likely that decks were going to be player created affairs I was told that I was being ridiculous. Guess who was right on that count too? When I said that, based on the information provided, it seemed like the intent was to make the cards in the booster packs more powerful than the cards you would otherwise have access too I was told that I was doomsayer. And then Tony, who likes the game, and bought it, informed the community that I was in fact correct. Based on his purchases, it does seem like the boosters contain some cards that are a good deal more powerful than anything you find outside of the booster packs. My "cystal ball" never fogged up, and it proved people like Alter_Boy wrong time and time again. And my "crystal ball" never made any claims as to how the community as a whole would feel about Gamma World and CCGs. I made statements, not predictions, about how I, and quite a few other people, have expressed that we do feel about Gamma World and CCGs. MechaPilot, I, Thunder_Dragonbane, and a few others who have posted in this thread, have stated that we do feel that way. I cannot predict whether we will be in the majority of the minority. I just don't know. I hope the majority. If not, I predict that the end result will be a product direction pursued by WotC that will cause me to stop buying their products.
But lets return to the here and now, and not past predictions that have already come true, or my fears in regards to the future.
What it is is a paragraph in which they talk about how the Gamma World tech isn't so different from random treasure distribution in D&D (...)
This is the only thing there is in this short quotation of yours. There is no suggestion of cards for D&D, it's more like an explanation for how do cards in Gamma World work to a D&D player. The thing about "the next logical step" and the rest is a fabrication of yours.
False. WotC tells us that "finding tech in Gamma World is a lot like finding magical items in D&D." So WotC tells us that finding Gamma World tech, via randomized booster distribution, isn't so different than random treasure distribution in D&D.
WotC then tells us that "By treating items of advanced tech as 'cards,' you can randomly determine what’s found by a simple draw rather than rolling on a chart or trying to stock an adventure with things your characters might want". Currently, essentials uses the "roll on a chart" method. D&D 4e, overall, has used the "stock an adventure with things your characters might want method." By qualifying how "simple" it is to draw a card, how much easier it is compared to existing methods currently used by the D&D 4e game, WotC implies that this card method is preferable to existing D&D 4e rules. After all, they put quite a lot of effort into "simplifying" the rules of D&D for the sake of ease of use. Simple rules equal good rules in the current paradigm (and overall, I agree). By naming the cards as a "more simple" way of running the game, they have named the cards as a preferable mechanic to current 4e rules from the perspective of the current paradigm of design.
And hey, now "you can hand that card to a player and say, 'Now you have this!'" How neat and easy is that! It is so much better than what 4e currently offers. It is so much easier than rolling on charts, stocking adventures with what you think your characters might want, and then forcing them to write down an item's information on their character sheets. But that isn't all! "Many D&D DMs already encourage their players to provide wish lists of items they’d like their characters to find someday. Once you start doing something like that, it’s not much of a leap for a player to provide his own wish list in the form of his own deck of tech items he wants to find." In other words, cards, and personalized decks created via Gamma Worlds randomized collectible booster packs, are the next logical step to the wish lists used in D&D 4e.
The most telling thing about all this is the way they are comparing D&D 4e mechanics to Gamma World mechanics, all the while using language that suggests that the Gamma World Mechanics are easier to use, superior. It shows that they have D&D in mind while creating these Gamma World mechanics. Considering WotCs track record of using side games (such as d20 Modern, Star Wars Saga, and so on and so forth) to test ideas for the D&D brand line, it is fairly obvious that WotC is currently doing exactly that. To claim otherwise is to ignore the facts. Ignoring things isn't the same thing as ignorance, it requires willful effort. You are doing something no different than what Alter_Boy did when he swore, up and down, that I was way off base in claiming that Gamma World was going to release Gamma World cards via a randomized collectible booster distribution model.
You may laugh, but in this case saying that proves WotC wants to implement cards in D&D is a very far-fetched conclusion. I'm not defending WotC here. I'm attacking far-fetched conclusions and reading too much from simple similes.
No, what you are doing is willfully ignoring the facts, perhaps because you don't like what those facts imply and can't accept them, perhaps because you do and you don't want people like me making a fuss about it. Mind you, I am not saying that WotC will put such cards into D&D. But is is fairly obvious that they are using Gamma World to test such a possibility. And why wouldn't they? Randomized booster packs are a good way to generate profit (if they don't drive away your customer base). WotC is a corporation. They are supposed to be generating profit. People really aught to start taking such things into account when making their current purchases...
Of course, if the majority of the community likes such mechanics and distribution models more power to them! Perhaps the time is approaching when I must go the way of the 3.5e fan and start purchasing things from different gaming companies. First, though, I plan to finish off my D&D 4e collection. Minus, that is, any related products that contain CCG aspects in them. 
I like to think I'm not ignoring the facts - I actually keep only to them, I make no assumptions whatsoever.
If it wasn't late I'd check those posts you mention to dissect them, word by word, as I sometimes do (I love making people choke on their own words).
But there is something I ignore: Gamma World as a whole. Not much interesting to me in it.
I took interest in this thread when it was created because of the circumastances; actually, it's still funny to think this was started by two tweets about an upcoming Ravenloft game. But it seems your predictions are more realistic than most "ruined FOREVER" claims, even if you use a very negative tone.
It may be informative to know I like to visit this site: www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank... (don't worry, this thread didn't make it there)
Funny. Do you guys have nothing to do?
@Cyber-Dave GW is released and liked by peeps. You lost.
But you have your 4E and no-one's gonna take it from you. So in this case you win. Stop seeing doom & gloom in the future. Relax and play. Everything's gonna be alright.
And now excuse me - I have two D&D campaigns, a GW campaign and Fiasco to play. Good luck.
UPDATE: And BTW - when I first saw GW Omega Tech my first thought was - "Wow it's way superior method of doing magic items than the one we got in D&D". So I'd be glad if Cyber-Dave is right.
Ooooh this sad doomsday thread still on?
Funny. Do you guys have nothing to do?
Says the person who just posted a response... ironic.
@Cyber-Dave GW is released and liked by peeps. You lost.
Really. Can you cite me sales data to back that up? Oh. Right. WotC doesn't give that out. So, you mean to say you like it. Truth is, as of right now, there is no way to know how well Gamma World is or isn't doing in the grand scheme of things.
But you have your 4E and no-one's gonna take it from you. So in this case you win. Stop seeing doom & gloom in the future. Relax and play. Everything's gonna be alright.
It will be all right regardless. D&D is the least important aspect of my life. But, if current trends continue, it will be all right without any of my cash being spent on WotC products.
UPDATE: And BTW - when I first saw GW Omega Tech my first thought was - "Wow it's way superior method of doing magic items than the one we got in D&D". So I'd be glad if Cyber-Dave is right.
Somehow that doesn't surprise me. Of course, I get the feeling I really don't like the same type of games you do.
Do you guys have nothing to do?
Says the person who just posted a response... ironic.
*** Didn't really answer his question. Or maybe you did...
@Cyber-Dave GW is released and liked by peeps. You lost.
Really. Can you cite me sales data to back that up? Oh. Right. WotC doesn't give that out. So, you mean to say you like it. Truth is, as of right now, there is no way to know how well Gamma World is or isn't doing in the grand scheme of things.
*** Nice strawman there. Is it from Oz?
Lots of people like Gamma World. This forum and RPG.net have active threads on Gamma World. Amazon.com places the GW box as the current 4th best selling D&D product (behind the latest Driz'zt novel, Monster Vault, and HotFK) www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=sear... . How much more big picture can you get?
But you have your 4E and no-one's gonna take it from you. So in this case you win. Stop seeing doom & gloom in the future. Relax and play. Everything's gonna be alright.
It will be all right regardless. D&D is the least important aspect of my life. But, if current trends continue, it will be all right without any of my cash being spent on WotC products.
*** Hey. don't go away angry!
*** Didn't really answer his question. Or maybe you did...
I don't bother answering questions whose only worth is their heavy dose of hypocritical and ironic comedy value. Your miserable attempt an innuendo isn't worth much more, by the way. When trying to "subtly" insult someone, you should probably make sure that you are not an equally valid target of the insult. You, too, are still posting in this thread...
*** Nice strawman there. Is it from Oz?
Lots of people like Gamma World. This forum and RPG.net have active threads on Gamma World. Amazon.com places the GW box as the current 4th best selling D&D product (behind the latest Driz'zt novel, Monster Vault, and HotFK) www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=sear... . How much more big picture can you get?
No. It is here from planet earth. It also isn't a strawman. You should probably look up what terms like that mean before you try and use them. Lots of people claiming that they like a product over two forums, and amazon sales data, does not equal "the big picture." I can show you forums where people unanimously agree that any game with a CCG element isn't worth buying, or tell you about local gaming stores where Gamma World is flopping. It is anecdotal. Such evidence might be representative of the bigger picture, or it might be a selective sampling which casts Gamma World in a better/worse light than it is actually being received in. I mean, 4e seems to be selling pretty well over Amazon, everyone in this forum loves the game, and yet, for the first time in my memory, this year another gaming product tied 4e in sales ranks according to a trade magazine. Star Wars Saga received nothing but praise over the WotC boards. It seemed like everyone who played it loved it. Last time I saw any numbers in regards to its sales ranks, its sales made up a little less than 5% of the RPG market, and its product line was recently canceled. Only time will tell whether Gamma World is selling well enough for WotC to attempt to integrate its CCG model of distribution into other gaming products (and when that happens, that is when I lose).
*** Hey. don't go away angry!
I am not angry. Disappointed? Yes. Will I get even more disappointed if this trend continues? Absolutely. But if WotC's consumer base uses their wallets to vote this in, then WotC is doing exactly what they should be doing. It would simply seem like my tastes are (for the first time in my life) becoming more niche then WotCs mainstream market. That is ok. If current trends continue, it will simply mean that I will save money that I would have otherwise spent on WotC products for other things.
we used print out s from the character builder in sleves with old yougio cards. We were 5th level, and each player picked a 4th leve, 5th level, 6th level, 7th level, 8th level and 9th level item. I then as the GM choose 2 6th level items, a 10th level item, and printed 3 special cards that say draw consumable. then I printed out a dozen healing potion, a few other consumables, and put togather the 2 decks.
we went through 6 combats, and 2 skill challanges. we drew from the deck 5 times, and it really worked well. in reality as long as the DM has final say I think it worked well...
I don't bother answering questions whose only worth is their heavy dose of hypocritical and ironic comedy value. Your miserable attempt an innuendo isn't worth much more, by the way.
At least now I know the exact amount of hypocrisy and ironic comedic value to use when I want you to respond.
When trying to "subtly" insult someone, you should probably make sure that you are not an equally valid target of the insult. You, too, are still posting in this thread...
Okay, but do you agree with Snarls? Is this a sad trainwreck of a thread kept alive by people with nothing better to do?
No. It is here from planet earth. It also isn't a strawman. You should probably look up what terms like that mean before you try and use them.
He said that a lot of people like GW. You replied that sales figures were inclusive. You switched the enjoyment focus to a sales focus; enjoyment and sales are linked, but not inseparable. Ergo, Strawman.
Lots of people claiming that they like a product over two forums, and amazon sales data, does not equal "the big picture." I can show you forums where people unanimously agree that any game with a CCG element isn't worth buying, or tell you about local gaming stores where Gamma World is flopping. It is anecdotal.
So what you're saying is there's no proof that Gamma World failed?
Star Wars Saga received nothing but praise over the WotC boards. It seemed like everyone who played it loved it. Last time I saw any numbers in regards to its sales ranks, its sales made up a little less than 5% of the RPG market, and its product line was recently canceled.
True. However, for a Star Wars game, it drew a lot of critical praise from the community and attention from people who wouldn't normally play Star Wars. Plus, it survived for 3 years and got a shelf-full of supplements. I'd say that it was a success.
Only time will tell whether Gamma World is selling well enough for WotC to attempt to integrate its CCG model of distribution into other gaming products (and when that happens, that is when I lose).
Well, fortunately D&D is the least important part of your life, so no biggie, eh?
I am not angry. Disappointed? Yes. Will I get even more disappointed if this trend continues? Absolutely. But if WotC's consumer base uses their wallets to vote this in, then WotC is doing exactly what they should be doing. It would simply seem like my tastes are (for the first time in my life) becoming more niche then WotCs mainstream market. That is ok. If current trends continue, it will simply mean that I will save money that I would have otherwise spent on WotC products for other things.
Well said.
He said that a lot of people like GW. You replied that sales figures were inclusive. You switched the enjoyment focus to a sales focus; enjoyment and sales are linked, but not inseparable. Ergo, Strawman.
He said that "I lost" because lots of people enjoy Gamma World. Since I only lose if a randomized collectible booster pack model of rules distribution starts to become incorporated in various other aspects of D&D, and that only happens if Gamma World's sales are high enough that WotC's management decides that Gamma World is selling well enough that their test is a success, he was wrong. It was Snarls that equated sales with enjoyment by claiming that "my loss" hinged on his estimation that "peeps enjoy Gamma World." It is too early to claim whether or not I have lost. We don't have accurate sales data. Hell, we don't even know what that magic number, described as "selling well enough," is. I lose if and when CCG elements start making it into the D&D brand line proper. Pointing that out isn't a strawman argument. Like I said, look up the term, and learn how to use it, before you start trying. Otherwise you just look like a RPG forum cliche... the poster who yells strawman every time someone else posts, and thinks that somehow lends them credibility.
So what you're saying is there's no proof that Gamma World failed?
Don't be intentionally dense. You know exactly what I was saying. The language of my paragraph fairly clearly labeled both Snarls and my own examples of "evidence" as anecdotal. The point is, there is no proof of (either) success (or failure) as of yet. Anecdotal evidence is not proof.
True. However, for a Star Wars game, it drew a lot of critical praise from the community and attention from people who wouldn't normally play Star Wars. Plus, it survived for 3 years and got a shelf-full of supplements. I'd say that it was a success.
What you would say is irrelevant. I love the game. I own every single copy of every book published for the line, and two copies of its Core Rulebook. But WotC did not consider the game to be successful enough to keep its brand around. Point is, again, I loose when WotC considers Gamma World sales to be successful enough that they integrate CCG mechanics into the D&D brand line proper.
Well, fortunately D&D is the least important part of your life, so no biggie, eh?
Just because it is the least important aspect of my life doesn't mean it won't be a big disappointment, if the day comes to pass... but then life will go on. I have already suffered far worse disappointments in life.
Yu-gi-oh 4e.
based on the video game world fromt he end of season 1. basicly everyone has a deck of X monsters Y traps and Z magic cards.
so each trap and magic card will need to be eaither an encounter or at will power, and each monster is a daily power... witch will be basic summons. The game will be set at 11th level, but with everyone being the same qusi class... random draw form your deck to see what powers are at your disposal...
ok, so now me and my group are going to try something even more card based...
Yu-gi-oh 4e.
based on the video game world fromt he end of season 1. basicly everyone has a deck of X monsters Y traps and Z magic cards.
so each trap and magic card will need to be eaither an encounter or at will power, and each monster is a daily power... witch will be basic summons. The game will be set at 11th level, but with everyone being the same qusi class... random draw form your deck to see what powers are at your disposal...
Dude, you scare me.
Though to be honest, I've always thought the world depicted in cards had great potential... I'd love to see some Black Scorpion or Gagagigo stories in comic form. Too bad the show had to focus on some kids with weird hairstyles.
ok, so now me and my group are going to try something even more card based...
Yu-gi-oh 4e.
based on the video game world fromt he end of season 1. basicly everyone has a deck of X monsters Y traps and Z magic cards.
so each trap and magic card will need to be eaither an encounter or at will power, and each monster is a daily power... witch will be basic summons. The game will be set at 11th level, but with everyone being the same qusi class... random draw form your deck to see what powers are at your disposal...
Dude, you scare me.
Though to be honest, I've always thought the world depicted in cards had great potential... I'd love to see some Black Scorpion or Gagagigo stories in comic form. Too bad the show had to focus on some kids with weird hairstyles.
ok first... you are not alone, I scare alot of people ;)
second, I agree the world the cards describe would rock as a D^D setting but they never really levraged that.
in all honnesty this is just to try out Cyber--daves idea of useing random cards in D&D, and I know other players that are trying to use the old birthright stuff to do a magic the gathering setting (tapping land)
He said that "I lost" because lots of people enjoy Gamma World. Since I only lose if a randomized collectible booster pack model of rules distribution starts to become incorporated in various other aspects of D&D, and that only happens if Gamma World's sales are high enough that WotC's management decides that Gamma World is selling well enough that their test is a success, he was wrong. It was Snarls that equated sales with enjoyment by claiming that "my loss" hinged on his estimation that "peeps enjoy Gamma World."
See, here's the crux of the problem.
No-one thinks the way you do, Cyber-Dave.
Snarks stated that his peeps enjoyed Gamma World. You may have injected "... and my liking of the game will eventually destroy your fun. Ha-Ha!" into his sentiment, but I doubt that was his intention. You're looking at the Gamma World line as a direct attack on your enjoyment, when it's just someone else's cup of tea. Do you tell people you hate not to fall in love so that they won't have kids? No, that would be ridiculous.
We don't have accurate sales data. Hell, we don't even know what that magic number, described as "selling well enough," is. I lose if and when CCG elements start making it into the D&D brand line proper.
Have you heard about the shepherd who tricks the sheep into a trap by building it one piece a day? Or the lobster that feels no pain if the water it's in is slowly brought up to boiling? Every attempt by gaming companies to make RPGs collectible either works or makes their next attempt less shocking. D&D Miniatures started the wave that Gamma World and Aspects of Fate are following on. So, win or lose, Gamma World will make CCGs in RPGs closer to reality.
Otherwise you just look like a RPG forum cliche.
And the person angry at change in D&D isn't a cliche?
What you would say is irrelevant. I love the game. I own every single copy of every book published for the line, and two copies of its Core Rulebook. But WotC did not consider the game to be successful enough to keep its brand around.
The fact that you and other people love the system is a sign of success in my books.
It is too early to claim whether or not I have lost.
Point is, again, I loose when WotC considers Gamma World sales to be successful enough that they integrate CCG mechanics into the D&D brand line proper.
My friend, when you make an arbitrary line in the sand and claim that one thing (whose final nature may be either good or bad) will ruin your fun, you have already lost.
No-one thinks the way you do, Cyber-Dave.
I really don't think you have a clue here. If you want CCG elements in your D&D, go ahead beg for them.
It just means I don't have to spend money.
I will look forward to new inovations mixed with classic ideas and themes that I will try and inturpret as they come based only on a case by case idea... I will not beg for CCG elements any more then I beg for any other changes... but I wont dissmiss them out of hand.
way back in 2e I liked to play D&D and didn't know why some things worked better then others...but then I loved 3e, and felt the rearrange of the system made it better. I often went to char op, and leanred why some things worked and others didn;t...when 3.5 did away with partial actions I cheered.
I often lamented the fact that I wanted to play a fighter or monk concept, but felt they where underpowered... when book of 9 swords came out I found a new way to play them.
I often wanted to be a caster but not dominate play, warlock was right up my ally.
when I crafted my own world with all my own classes I made my mage have warlock invocations, low level wizard spells, and icantation style rituels... I gave my fighter a mix of battlemind and fighter...
when 4e came out it was even better then anything I imagined. for the first time in years I finaly had the peice of the puzzel that was missing... balance. Then of cource where things I didn;t.
see there were lots of improvements over they years, and maybe the next one will be a CCG that sucks, or maybe a CCG element that rocks.
No-one thinks the way you do, Cyber-Dave.
I really don't think you have a clue here. If you want CCG elements in your D&D, go ahead beg for them.
It just means I don't have to spend money.
I'm pretty sure Alter meant "no one thinks the way you do" as in "they're not antagonizing you by liking GW, get over it".
. There is an age old adage... if it ain't broke don't fix it and the devlopers should take this to heart.
Yep and if everyone followed it, we'd still hunt with stone axes and lived in caves. Why! It's a nice stone axe! If it's not broken don't fix it!
If God wanted people to fly, He'd given them wings, right? And if He wanted them to drive, He'd given them wheels, huh?
He said that "I lost" because lots of people enjoy Gamma World. Since I only lose if a randomized collectible booster pack model of rules distribution starts to become incorporated in various other aspects of D&D, and that only happens if Gamma World's sales are high enough that WotC's management decides that Gamma World is selling well enough that their test is a success, he was wrong. It was Snarls that equated sales with enjoyment by claiming that "my loss" hinged on his estimation that "peeps enjoy Gamma World."
See, here's the crux of the problem.
No-one thinks the way you do, Cyber-Dave.
That is funny. Thunder_Dragonbane, AH_Stormbringer, MechaPilot, and a few others in this thread, seem to disagree with you.
Snarks stated that his peeps enjoyed Gamma World. You may have injected "... and my liking of the game will eventually destroy your fun. Ha-Ha!" into his sentiment, but I doubt that was his intention. You're looking at the Gamma World line as a direct attack on your enjoyment, when it's just someone else's cup of tea. Do you tell people you hate not to fall in love so that they won't have kids? No, that would be ridiculous.
And this is a the very definition of a strawman argument. For ease of reference, here is how wikipedia defines a strawman:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
When trying to use the term correctly, next time, imagine what you just did. Accusing you of performing a strawman is now factually accurate. Snarls said that I "lost because people like the game." I pointed out that I have not lost, because people liking the game is not what causes me to lose. My hobby being (subjectively) destroyed is what causes me to lose. That situation coming to pass is attached to more than the game's anecdotal popularity. You falsely accused me of performing a strawman by misrepresenting the nature of my role in this discussion. When I pointed that out, you now brought up something that has nothing to do with anything. You have attacked "me saying" that Snarls said "... and my liking of the game will eventually destroy your fun. Ha-Ha!", but I never said Snarls said that, ever. Thus, your attack is a strawman. You have misrepresented my argument in order to create a false victory. Your victory has nothing to do with my actual position.
To respond to your point, I do fear that Gamma World's financial success will eventually ruin the D&D hobby for me. If Gamma World style collectible cards are added to the D&D line, it will have ruined the D&D hobby for me. This is not an unreasonable statement. There is only one brand of game called D&D. It isn't like there are 2 or 3 different D&D brands, and one of them incorporating elements I don't like still leaves me with other brands to play. And I will not play games with a CCG element, because such elements ruin my ability to subjectively enjoy the product line. However, I did not say that Snarls was maliciously attacking me by enjoying Gamma World, or that he was laughing about the fact that Gamma World's financial success might ruin my fun. In fact, I have been pretty clear in stating that I think the ultimate result of all this will be based on a much larger overall phenomenon than any individual person's tastes, and that if the overall phenomenon does result in the D&D brand being ruined for me that still doesn't mean anyone committed an unethical action (by attempting to intentionally ruin my fun). It will simply mean that D&D's popular fanbase now enjoys something different from me. It will suck to be me in that case, but that is ok. I will find other games to play and enjoy. It is not what I want to happen, because I want to play and enjoy D&D. But I am not so conceited to believe that WotC should cater their games to my tastes unless doing so is financially intelligent. I have also never claimed that anyone who is buying Gamma World is committing an unethical action. There is no position that is empirically right in this case. Ethics has nothing to do with the discussion. No one here is trying to intentionally ruin anyone elses fun. I have never said that that is the case. So, please stop misrepresenting my position. It does you no credit.
Have you heard about the shepherd who tricks the sheep into a trap by building it one piece a day? Or the lobster that feels no pain if the water it's in is slowly brought up to boiling? Every attempt by gaming companies to make RPGs collectible either works or makes their next attempt less shocking. D&D Miniatures started the wave that Gamma World and Aspects of Fate are following on. So, win or lose, Gamma World will make CCGs in RPGs closer to reality.
Maybe. Maybe not. I certainly intend to make as big of a fuss about it as I can in the hopes that I can make CCGs in RPGs a little father from reality. If I fail I fail. Then I will look for a different game, produced by a different company, that is still producing the type of games I like to play. Or, I will turn into a grognard and just play older RPG games. The world will go on.
And the person angry at change in D&D isn't a cliche?
You have misrepresented my position again. I am far from angry. In fact, based on your recent posts, I would say you are having more of an emotional response to this thread than I am. But despite your attempt to shame me into not voicing my opinion, I don't plan to stop. I have a vested interest in trying to protect my own enjoyment of the game. I am providing feedback in order to do just that. Will it help? Maybe, maybe not. That will depend on factors outside of my control... it will depend on how many people in the community feel the same way I do, and are not purchasing Gamma World as a result. If there are not enough of us then it will not help, nor should it. If there are not enough people who feel the way I do then CCGs should be added to the D&D brand. It would be good business for WotC. That, however, does not mean that I should not voice my customer feedback. After all, it may turn out that I am part of a significant percentage of this community. Whatever the size of our percentage, our voice deserves to be heard (but not necessarily acted upon), even if it turns out that we are not a large enough percentage for it to be economically reasonable for WotC to listen to us.
The fact that you and other people love the system is a sign of success in my books.
Your books are irrelevant. Your books did not save the Saga brand line from being shut down... which, by the way, was a big loss to those of us who really love the system.
My friend, when you make an arbitrary line in the sand and claim that one thing (whose final nature may be either good or bad) will ruin your fun, you have already lost.
No, "my friend," I lose when I allow people like you to silence my voice. Expressing my opinion of this element, and allowing WotC to know that I will not enjoy any game that includes it, and as such will not be able to purchase or play any game that includes it, is not a loss. It is an act of self expression. The only people who try and claim that such an act is a loss are... well... I think I just Godwined this thread.
Tell you what. My arguments are obviously causing you some distress, if you think my proddings to expand your thinking is an attempt to silence you. So I shall add you to my list of ignores, making me unable to see your witty rejoiners and illuminating insights into the RPG world, and allow you to have the last word.
Because the person open to change is a Nazi, and the person who wishes to suppress variety is not a Nazi?
Depends what kind of change. Nazi Germany brought about quite a bit of "change." As it turns out, it wasn't change for the better. Not being open to a particular type of change doesn't make someone a facist. On the other hand, trying to silence a person's attempt to express their opinions... yes, that is a blatently facist act.
Tell you what. My arguments are obviously causing you some distress, if you think my proddings to expand your thinking is an attempt to silence you.
Telling someone that they should enjoy games with CCG elements in them, no matter what their personal tastes might be, is not an attempt to "expand someones thinking." It is an attempt to colonize their subjective tastes. That sort of "expansion" is no different than what was performed by the 3e trolls that plagued the WotC boards, and who kept telling all of us how we should enjoy 3e instead of 4e, when 4e first came out.
Telling someone that they should stop saying that they don't like a thing, especially when that statement doesn't involve any empirical claims as to any products' quality, but rather is grounded solely in the expression of personal and very subjective preferences, is an attempt to silence personal expression.
Being aware of those two facts doesn't indicate that you are causing me personal distress.
So I shall add you to my list of ignores, making me unable to see your witty rejoiners and illuminating insights into the RPG world, and allow you to have the last word.
Excellent. That sounds like a good idea. You should be aware, however, that telling someone that you are putting them on ignore is against the CoC of these boards.
Because the person open to change is a Nazi, and the person who wishes to suppress variety is not a Nazi?
Godwin'd in 355. What took y'all so long? We had Godwins in 2 in the OTT.
Because the person open to change is a Nazi, and the person who wishes to suppress variety is not a Nazi?
Godwin'd in 355. What took y'all so long? We had Godwins in 2 in the OTT.
Give credit where credit is due. I godwined the thread in 354... though it was (partially) a joke.
Hey snarls that is not what is meant by that adage, if you want to play a CCG go play magic but I would like wizards to stop screwing my favorite rpg...Roleplaying game not CCG or RPG/CCG or some hybrid of both types of games. People have become to dependant on gimics when alot of what makes D&D so appealing is that it has stayed true to its roots, sure the rules have changed just not the approch to how the rules effect roleplaying. Having to collect random cards is not what a roleplaying game should be about, it should focus on the roleplaying aspect not do I have the best cards.
And I would really like you not to tell me what games I should play.
And besides roleplaying game has nothing to do with the fact if it has dice, cards and so on or not. Adding CCG doesn't make it less RPG. And besides Gamma World is NOT CCG. We play it. We don't collect cards. And nothing in the game rules pushed us to do it or makes our game expreince less satisfying.
Hey snarls that is not what is meant by that adage, if you want to play a CCG go play magic but I would like wizards to stop screwing my favorite rpg...Roleplaying game not CCG or RPG/CCG or some hybrid of both types of games. People have become to dependant on gimics when alot of what makes D&D so appealing is that it has stayed true to its roots, sure the rules have changed just not the approch to how the rules effect roleplaying. Having to collect random cards is not what a roleplaying game should be about, it should focus on the roleplaying aspect not do I have the best cards.
And I would really like you not to tell me what games I should play.
And besides roleplaying game has nothing to do with the fact if it has dice, cards and so on or not. Adding CCG doesn't make it less RPG. And besides Gamma World is NOT CCG. We play it. We don't collect cards. And nothing in the game rules pushed us to do it or makes our game expreince less satisfying.
Yea. I am sorry, but that is flat out false. The game distributes the components of your character's decks via randomized booster packs full of (collectible) cards. The company itself admits this, and has called the cards collectible... not that it matters. The distribution model is the very definition of what makes a card collectible in the context of a collectible card game. It is thus a collectible card game, because it is a game that makes use of collectible cards. It is true that it is an RPG. It is also true that it is a CCG. The game also rewards you for collecting cards by giving you a more powerful character. You may, subjectively, not feel the need to enjoy that benefit in order to enjoy the game. You may choose not to collect the cards yourself. But it simply a set of facts that the game does have collectible cards as a component of its rules, that it is thus a form of collectible card game, and that it rewards you for collecting.