Fortune Cards Threads [Merged]

[jimmifett]

Because it separates players into groups based on disposable income. The cards allow you to do more "cool things" based on the amount of real world money you spend on them. As a person with a small gaming budget, and who abandoned CCG in 2000, I have no interest or money to invest in a deck. So I resent the fact that a person could build the same character I have, but with the equivalent of an extra utility power which could be used multiple times in an encounter.
When running a game, I don't want to discourage my more casual players from playing the game, or slow down combat further with the additional set of minor tactical options. Some of my players would handle it quickly, others not so much.

While I can't speak for other players, the cards do not slow me down at all, requiring only a moment of additional thought based on the card in my hand if freshly drawn, otherwise, i've had the entire time during other player's turn to decide how I want to use the card.


Without venturing too deeply into some form of political or sociological tangent, is it one's job as DM to limit content allowed in a game based on the financial capabilites of one's self or the other players? Does a DM have reasonable justification to exclude 1st party material such as PHB 2, 3, the Powers books, adventurers vaults, or the essentials lines based soley on other players have not yet had the oppurtunity to buy it themselves and only have PHB 1? Is there reasonable justification for first party DDI material to be excluded since it's available only to those that wish to pay for DDI. There, one has clear cut feats, classes, races, powers and actual game changing character creation options available only to those that pay a premium.

If one is not willing to exclude DDI character creation content, or supplements beyond PHB1, it is hypocrisy to then exclude something like Fortune Cards that grant minor buffs simply because it costs money, or those with larger expendable income can afford to purchase cards of a rarer nature by bypassing randomized booster packs.

That goes for any game system that has more than just a core rulebook. If one wants extra options, such as those found in Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Guide, that person pays to get those options and advantages beyond the core options that everyone else has. Other players have that same ability if they so choose to invest their money as such. If they choose not to exercise it, one does not penalize or ostracize the person that did choose to buy those extra options.

If a source of 1st party options does not interfere with the campaign world (for instance, reasonable arguments can be made about excluding psionic or another power source as it does not mesh with a given campaign world, or specific deities, specific themes or specific artifacts) then I can see no reasonable justification to deny payed content in any cooperative system.

 

[OnlineDM]

I disagree that it's hypocritical to limit content. D&D is a cooperative game. I personally feel that it works best when the members of a party are of a similar power level overall. If you have super-optimized characters alongside characters that are built purely based on flavor with no thought toward stats, combat is going to be less fun, in my opinion. Either the optimized character will be bored, or the non-optimized character will be dead (or fleeing).

Restricting feats and powers that are overpowered relative to others is reasonable (if the players trust the DM, of course). The same goes for restricting things like Fortune Cards.

Again, this is solely my opinion, but I firmly disagree with a player who says, "Well, this is official material, Mr. / Ms. DM, so you have to allow me to use it." No, no I don't. And if there's that antagonistic relationship between the player and the DM, that's not a healthy dynamic.

I would hope that the DM could approach the player and say, "Listen, I know that you think Feature X is really cool, but it's pretty overpowered relative to the options that you see at the rest of the table. I think we'll have a better game if you choose something other than Feature X."

To be clear, I don't think the DM should spring this on the players as a surprise - they should know that the DM is an advocate of balance among the party and therefore not every piece of official material will get the green light. Also, this veto power should be used sparingly. But if something is going to let one player outshine the others most of the time, I think that diminishes the fun of the game as a whole.

 

[jimmifett]

That's when a DM makes informed decisions to allow the player the ability to use something they find exciting, but perhaps puts limitations on usage. For example, while the non-LFR deck rules do not appear to limit dupe cards at the moment, simply enacting that rule from LFR at the table significantly eliminates abuse. The DM could tell the player "sure, we can use those, but we're going to use them as a communal deck." Finding a way to tell a player yes, but with conditions, is a lot more fun for everyone than saying no. Good DMs know something is overpowered when they see it and will try to reign it in. Fortune cards are far from over powered provided good deck construction rules.

What I am addressing is the out right dismissal of a product based on flawed perceptions of it's implementation and goals, some sort of envy or jealousy of others ability to bypass randomized distribution with money, that somehow money equals an uber-deck, or a company's desire to make money via an interesting product that may have demand. I'm looking at a list of all the cards, and the rares do not seem to be any more powerful on average that uncommon or common.

Where is the discussion of how useful they can be, ratings of each card, how they can be improved, alternate rules and uses, etc? Instead, for the most part, there is a dogpile of "big evil corporation making a profit", "rich-kid jealousy", and other "have vs have not" gnashing of teeth without even trying the product. Pre-conceived judgements adults kept telling us not to make back when we were growing up.

Then again, this is the intertubes and is to be expected i guess...

Bottom line, players and DMs, give it a chance. Maybe you'll still hate it, maybe not, but don't use class warfare arguments to dismiss them as that argument just doesn't hold water with these.

 

[MrMyth]

There are only 8 cards that grant strokes of luck, only two of those are triggered by OA, and only one of those is triggered by YOU instigating the OA (the other requiring an ally to be attacked by an OA).

So, to get your reroll that you set up yourself via OA, you have a 1/10 chance at the start of encounter of drawing that card. You can't have multiples unless you increase the deck size by 10

I have to absolutely admit that I had missed the "no multiples" rule. It doesn't seem to be listed in the "Build Your Own Deck" rules they posted - just the limit on how many of each type of card you can have.

My assumption was that you could stock up on 3 of each of those that you mention (3 Defense cards to gain SoL by triggering OAs, and 3 Tactics cards go give the same to an ally), plus 4 attack cards.

If you are restricted to only one of each card, that definitely does reduce the abuseability. I still think there are enough reliably effective cards you can still get a significant boost from their use, and pretty much guarantee you are getting a free benefit (equivalent to an encounter utility power) every round of every combat... but it isn't quite as easy to do so as I had thought.

Looking over later posts, it looks like that restriction is part of LFR. A good call, I think, on their part - much as I've seen many decent homebrew suggestions for useful ways for DMs to use these cards.

Neither one, though, really changes the fact that as WotC has produced them, they can provide a significant boost in power level over what the game assumes is appropriate.

 

[No Name]

20 commons
19 uncommons
41 rares

How does this compare to MtG?

 

[blalien]

20 commons
19 uncommons
41 rares

How does this compare to MtG?

The latest large Magic set, Scars of Mirrodin, has 249 cards: 104 common, 58 uncommon, 52 rare, 15 mythic rare, and 20 basic lands.

An MTG booster pack costs $4 and has 16 cards: 1 marketing card, 1 basic land, 10 commons, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare or mythic rare (rare 7/8 of the time, mythic rare 1/8 of the time).

To get a specific card, on average you'd need to buy 11 booster packs for a common, 20 for an uncommon, 60 for a rare, or 120 for a mythic rare.

A Fortune Cards booster pack also costs $4 and contains 8 cards: 5 commons, 2 uncommons, and 1 rare. That means to get a specific card, on average you'd need to buy 4 booster packs for a common, 10 for an uncommon, or 41 for a rare.

So, even though you don't get as many cards in Fortune Cards as in Magic, in general you are much more likely to find the specific card you want.

 

[Badwe]

the fortune cards don't appeal to me, they don't seem interesting or worth the complexity.

on the other hand, the gloom deck or whatever it's called from the shadowfel boxed set sounds great to me, i would buy boosters of that. i'm also intrigued by the deck of many things they're promising for Gardmore abbey.

in summary: some cards are good, others are bad. i have no greate explanation for why i feel this way.