Some interesting news about 4th edition

[ThirdWizard]

I remember that TSR tried this a long time ago with spell decks and magic item decks, but these were more like index cards than playing cards. Yech!

The AD&D 2E Official Dungeon Master Decks: Deck of Wizard Spells (TSR) is actually in viewing distance of me, and I got a lot of milage out of it! Sadly, so is the Deck of Psionic Powers, which I have no excuse for. I await my punishment.

 

[Starman]

Mild hi-jack...

Fasa isn't running the MechWarrior line anymore. Do you know who is?

FanPro has it, I believe.

 

[Steverooo]

Nope. It's a complete troll. Integrating D&D with M:tG is such a cosmically stupid thing to do that this can be nothing else.

Escusez moi? Mike Mearls did a long series of "spells of color", based upon M:tG, right here on these boards, did he not? And did not WotC hire Mr. Mearls? Am I mistaken?

Now I am not familiar with M:tG, but cou;dn't the creatures, there, and items, Mearl's "spells of color", etc., be added to the Monster Manuals, DMGs, spell lists, etc., without making D&D either collectable or ruined? Opinions may vary on the quality, and it all would depend upon the implementation, but it is certainly not impossible...

 

[Rasyr]

There are a couple of major points here.

1) This is just a rumor and has not been substantiated or confirmed by other sources, so it remains in the rumor category.

2) The original poster mentioned mixing the two games, but not in what manner. His only comment on that was:

But the terms "feat cards", "spell cards" and "power boost cards" (?) were used.

This seems to suggest that IF this rumor were true, WotC would be adding collectible card game elements to D&D.

3) There is no mention, other than by speculators in this thread, that any card elements would replace dice mechanics, or replace any other mechanic. Though the phrase "power boost cards" could possibly intimate additional mechanics to those that already exist.

4) There is no mention, in the original post, giving any indication of a crossover between settings either.

 

[Nellisir]

Never mind that even if he knew, he'd be breaching his NDA with WotC so big he's never work professionally as a writer again. Never mind that it's a friend-of-a-friend story being repeated by somebody on the internet with no authentication. Never mind that WotC has owned the rights to D&D for ~7 years and not begun to make D&D and M:tG cross over (and they have done surveys back in the late 90's to gauge how much the D&D fan base wanted an RPG of Dominaria, so if there was demand I'd imagine they would have filled it by now). Never mind that it's an idea so inherently ridiculous it's been the subject of countless parodies ever since WotC bought TSR. Never mind that it inherently changes the play model of RPG's so much that it really isn't even D&D (or an RPG) anymore if you have to collect cards just to play the game.

Yes, but...will they put bubble gum in the card packs again?


Nell.

 

[WildWeasel]

it's not a horrible idea... on paper. it wasn't even a horrible idea when tsr did it 15 years ago.

remember the original creature cards? they had a picture of the monster on one side (to show the players) and a stat block on the other side (for the dm).

then there was the "deck of" series. the deck of encounters, the deck of magic items, the deck of psionics, etc.

shoot, we even had 3 sets (750 cards each) of "collectible" cards. not really collectible in the end, because you could buy a full factory set in a nice box. and worth nearly nothing now, i just bought the 1991 & 1992 factory sets for a grand total of $35.

the "deck of" series was nice because you could pull out the spells your pc knew and you had a full reference right there, no time wasted paging through the phb. the tsr cards are very handy too. need an npc? pull out a card, here's your npc fully statted out with items. great for on the fly stuff or even as a jumping-off point.

personally, i would embrace revised/updated reprints of the above card sets (complete sets, that is). imagine being able to take a small pack of (refernce) cards to a game rather than hauling around 3 different books. if i could buy a "factory set" of spells, feats, magic items or what-have-you, i would be quite happy. if i had to buy 108 boosters to find a "wish" or "+3 longsword" i wouldn't be buying any.

But these are play-aids that WotC could put out tomorrow for 3.5 without affecting the game at all, a far cry from some that requires a putative new edition to implement.

 

[GVDammerung]

When MtG first came out, I played. While I ultimately moved on, I remember the often very impressive art, art which invoked a setting far more than was necessary for or realized in MtG. Were 4E to take advantage of the suggested setting of MtG, supported by that or similar art, I would have an immediate interest, far more certainly than if the alternative is another recycling of the Forgotten Realms.

With respect to the collectible nature of MtG being ported to 4E, I think I would have to see the execution. I have difficulty imagining how the basic rules set could incorporate much in the way of a "collectible" feature. I would think the game would need to be playable without such.

With respect to add-on material, there might be more room for "collectibility" but, again, the execution would be very important. In this respect, if we are speaking of art, it would need to be of consistently high quality to interest me. One of the reasons I do not care for the D&D minis is that the common and uncommon minis are intentionally poorly painted, in part so that the well painted "rares" stand out more. Were a collectible feature of uniformly high quality, I would not necessarily reject the idea out of hand.

Collectibles might be useful play aids like minis. They might also be more rules based, as has been mentioned, various kinds of cards. Well illustrated magic item cards immediately pop to mind as a potentially useful thing. I dislike 3.5 in part because it assumes magic items' existence and possession as a given. If this assumption were not part of 4E and the items were more frosting than cake, randomized decks of items (again high quality) might not be out of the question. The same might be said of "feat cards" or "spell cards," as their proliferation in just Wotc products is beyond any easy way of cataloging for immediate use. In this case, individual cards would making keeping track of feats/spells and selecting them potentially easier.

The examples of prior efforts along somewhat similar lines - "Spell Decks," SAGA and Spellfire - are inappropo, IMO. If they used art at all, it was often recycled, often "cropped" from larger works to very poor visual effect, or more along the line of a colored in pencil sketch. From a rules prospective, I doubt the rules mechanic for 4e would be card based. "Build on the success" suggests to me other than the adoption of a card based rule set; IMO, dice will still be used to run the game.

I find the suggetions in the OP intriguing.

 

[GVDammerung]

4th Edition is going to be seen as just a cheap, money making effort unless they do something either revolutionary or VERY evolutionary with D&D. Cedric

But these are play-aids that WotC could put out tomorrow for 3.5 without affecting the game at all, a far cry from some that requires a putative new edition to implement.

I disagree.

4e need not be that different from 3X to be successful. A number of other RPGs put out new editions that only tweak the basic rules and are still deemed successful. CoC. Hero System. These come to mind. GURPS? Ars Magica? Warhammer? I'm not sure there but my sense is they are more "same" than radically "different." The new Vampire seems to strike a nice balance between tweak and "different."

Play-aids might well help to "distinguish" a 4E that otherwise only tweaked the 3X rules. This would be more true the more the "play aids" were made integral to the rules by one degree or another.

All the same 3.5 is most assuredly not a perfect game and can be redesigned to good effect in a "different" way. My bugaboo is high level play. It both bogs down in combat and in NPC development and can too easily become a die rolling contest of saves. Different? It can be usefully and radically "different" IMO.

 

[Imperialus]

You know...

To be honest I wouldn't be at all surprised if WoTC took a clue from other very successful marketing efforts from other industries and released rumors like this among their 'hardcore' fan base in order to test reactions.

wouldn't surprise me... A few years back FanPro posted a joke announcement of Shadowrun D20 on April Fools day. Seems like a pretty good way to do some stealth marketing to me, especially if you can just take it back after dumpshockers start burning effigies by saying it was an april fools day joke.

 

[Turjan]

2) The original poster mentioned mixing the two games, but not in what manner. His only comment on that was:

But the terms "feat cards", "spell cards" and "power boost cards" (?) were used.

This seems to suggest that IF this rumor were true, WotC would be adding collectible card game elements to D&D.

Good point. It's not even said that the collectible element would make it into the game.

• "Feat cards?" Good idea. This means that players (and the DM) won't forget that they have those.
• "Spell Cards?" I still think that Paradigm Concepts' Spell Decks were an excellent idea. It's a pity that the timing of the release (directly before the release of 3.5e) was so bad, otherwise they would be much more popular nowadays.
• "Power Boost Cards"? I know that many people use tokens to represent temporary buffs. A card for helping with remembering those wouldn't be bad, either. With a fat number in a corner.

In fact, as I already mentioned above, I really love Fiery Dragon's "special attack" and "temporary condition" cards. They are also a great help in play .

3) There is no mention, other than by speculators in this thread, that any card elements would replace dice mechanics, or replace any other mechanic. Though the phrase "power boost cards" could possibly intimate additional mechanics to those that already exist.

As I said, buff spells meet this criterion. No need for new mechanics here . I have the feeling that most of the given examples are not really that much out there from where we are today.