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

[ProfessorCirno]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nork]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AllisterH]

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

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

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

 

[Fifth Element]

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

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

Therefore. . .

"Professional" game designers? Bwahahahahahaha. Nice one.

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

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

Clear now?

 

[Jan van Leyden]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MrMyth]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[demetri0us]

I actually like collectable products.

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

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

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

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

 

[Dausuul]

The product is optional - I don't think there is much room for an argument that it is ethically wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[True_Blue]

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

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

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

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

 

[TheYeti1775]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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