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

[Hussar]

Meh, I've never been a fan of the "The DM must spend all the money at the table" buying scheme.

This pushes things off onto the players. Yay! Something I don't have to buy.

Heck, is there any reason you couldn't buy one booster and have everyone draw from it? It's not like you have to buy five or six boosters.

Also, what's the problems with doubles? Since the generation is random, having a "Sudden wind springs up" card twice doesn't really hurt anything.

I can totally see people not liking this. And that's fine. For me, I think it's fun. It gives power to the players to have concrete effects at the table beyond what their character can do. I'm all for that.

SJMiller - I can honestly say that I do not play that way. Heck, I play online - everyone has to have a computer. And, I'll guarantee that every one of my players has, from time to time, done a bit of searching or whatnot during the game. Wouldn't bother me at all to have a player tweet during the game, so long as it wasn't holding anything up.

Tweeting about the game during the game? Fantastic.

 

[Jor-El]

I can't help but feel that, with the introduction of these cards + the Gamma World setting (which will also include a randomized card set) + the Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashadarlon board games...

That we are seeing the beginnings of some testing for the future...

 

[Joshua Randall]

I think how WotC made most of their money (on the "booster pack" concept premiered in magic and used on every eight-year-old with Pokemon) is pretty exploitative

Give us a break.

We're talking about games that people voluntarily play because they enjoy playing them.

The fact that WotC uses a clever marketing strategy to sell more Magic and Pokemon cards is just that -- a clever marketing strategy.

Find something else to put your energey into, like peace in our time or ending world hunger. Crusading against collectable card games is ludicrous.

Admin here. Folks shouldn't over-react, please; these aren't slot machines, but neither should we rail at someone if they find collectible card games addictive. Our group used to refer to Magic as "crack" for a reason. It's fine to discuss, and I think it's an interesting topic, but I don't want us to get to the point where we're yelling at one another about it. Thanks. ~ PCat

 

[Scribble]

I find it odd that you would find it odd that some DMs might think it unfair to allow some PCs to get non-standard bonuses and in-game power that they can't get simply because they did not spend the extra, real world money. That would be like a DM saying, "any player giving me $5 gets 10 extra +2 bonuses in the game tonight." Only, in this case, its any player giving WotC extra money gets extra potential benefits in the game and greater say over the course of events.

Edit: And yes, I understand these are optional. That's not the point. The point is how they are being marketed and the suggested use of them.

I guess I just don't see it the same way.

To me this is like someone showing up with a 3pp book and saying "Can I take a feat from this book?"

And me saying sure.

I just don't see the "intended use" you see.

Sure, I think they'd be happy to have everyone buy a pack, but there's nothing in the design that attempts to push you in that direction.

A DM saying everyone buys a pack or we don't use them would in my eyes be akin to "Everyone buys the book or we don't use the feats in it."

I think others have pointed out, but you could just shuffle the same deck and draw a card for anyone who wants to use it.

This is the entire reason I say this design is actually better for your wallet. I can buy into it as much or as little as I want.

Nothing in the rules of the cards (that they spoke of at least) causes me to buy more cards.

I can buy 1 pack or I can buy 50 packs all based on my own desired level of buy in.

Contrast this to a book where I have to spend say 30 dollars to get any use out of it.

Sure- both have ups and downs- I just think you're looking at the wrong "downs" for this particular product.

 

[SteveC]

Now I've never quite understood this attitude. If I don't particularly care for something, but it is obvious that others do . . . I don't have any desires for it to fail. I just don't purchase it myself. Why such negativity towards something that others find fun, just because you don't?

I can definitely understand that, let me explain: I think this idea (random, collectible items for RPGs) is a very bad thing, both for WotC and the industry as a whole, so I hope they don't sell very well, so that WotC decides to do something else. I'm happy to give them my money, but only for products I'm looking for. I hope that it fails because it's not simply something that I don't like, it reflects a change in the hows and whys their products are made that I don't like. If they were to make a Dominion style package, I'd be onboard with it, and likely be a customer.

So I don't want anyone at WotC to lose their jobs over this, but I still really find it objectionable.

Hopefully that makes a little more sense, because I certainly can understand the notion of "if you don't like something just don't buy it..." and that's usually the attitude I take.

 

[catsclaw227]

My impression is that a booster may be busted open and used at some point in the encounter, determined by the DM. i.e.

DM: "OK, Joe, you said you had a Fortune Deck, open it, grab a random one and let's see what happens."

And then maybe even use the remaining cards in the same encounter or later in the session.

When it was mentioned that if someone had collected a bunch of cards there would be some rules for building a deck so that the deck owner wouldn't be at an unfair advantage.

DM (at the beginning of the session): "Hey, Joe, you have a fortune deck, right? Can you break them into Commons, Uncommons, Rares and then shuffle each? I am going to blindly and randomly pull 8 commons, 4 uncommons and 2 rare and that will be our deck for today's session."

This doesn't seem terrible. I think it might make for some fun during the game and there's nothing in this that is forcing the DM's hand or giving deep-pocket players an edge.

I can even see some players say they don't want to draw, what with the effects being possibly good or bad. No one HAS to participate.

---------------------------------

EDIT: When did I stop being a Community Supporter? No email or reminder that my account was expiring?

And now I don't have the option to pay for a full year in advance, I have to keep my eye on my paypal account each month for a transaction.... Geez, I really hate the new subscription model... This may be the first time in almost 7 years that I will not renew my Community Supporter Account....

 

[I'm A Banana]

We're talking about games that people voluntarily play because they enjoy playing them.

The fact that WotC uses a clever marketing strategy to sell more Magic and Pokemon cards is just that -- a clever marketing strategy.

It's true that it's voluntary. So is a slot machine. So is online gaming. So is eating more than you need. So are most drugs (at least initially).

Being voluntary doesn't mean it's not addictive. Self-control isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's different from a chemical dependency, but the psychology that goes into addiction (independent of the chemical dependency) is pretty well documented.

Taking advantage of our brain's dopamine triggers for reward-seeking in such a callously opportunistic way as is, in my book, a level of exploitation that I'm not comfortable with.

The issue of retail psychology is pretty well documented, so the question isn't "does it exist?" The question is: at what point do you draw the line between advertising and "marketing strategy" and manipulating people's minds to make a quick buck?

In my view, randomized reward systems like random booster packs cross that line, for me. For most people, they're probably fairly harmless (not everyone dies playing WoW), though I'm not sure what you as a consumer get from such a business model. I don't know how buying randomized packs instead of buying complete decks makes it any better of a product for the purchaser. I'm not going to tell WotC that they can't (or shouldn't be able to) do it. But I do find it distasteful.

In a similar way, I find something like the KFC Double Down distasteful. But KFC is (and probably should be) free to produce it and sell it. I'd just like to do my little part to create a little zone of sanity around myself where such a thing is not very present. I'd like to have consumers smarter than that. I'd like to have consumers who truly purchase something with the value of that something in mind, rather than consumers who love gambling on a friggin' pack of cards for D&D. But if some people want that thrill, I'm not going to stop them. I won't participate in it, though. And that's completely within the realm of reasonable human action.

 

[bagger245]

So we are buying Monopoly chance cards now?

 

[Hussar]

So we are buying Monopoly chance cards now?

Essentially, yes.

KM - I can see your point, but consider this - for the non collector, the randomized element doesn't matter. The non-collector doesn't care if he or she has the entire collection. And, it doesn't matter if he or she has doubles either, since drawing the cards during a session is also random. Having something come up twice during the game is not likely to be game breaking.

Unless it's really wonky, like fairies popping out of nowhere which is cool once, but, kinda weird otherwise.

For the collector, the randomized element makes his collection more valuable. A rare care remains rare and thus more valuable. If everyone gets exactly the same deck, then there is no value in collecting.

About the only person who gets screwed on this deal is the completist who is not interested in the collectable aspect. Since the decks don't need completion to be used, and, from the looks of it, aren't even intended to be complete at any point in time, I'm not sure if I'm actually all that worried about that consumer. That consumer is moving beyond what the product is intended for.

This isn't a "Build a Fate Deck for your Game" product. This is intended, from where I'm standing anyway, as a Monopoly Chance deck (thanks Bagger) for your session. Does it matter if your Monopoly Chance deck has all the cards?

 

[I'm A Banana]

For the collector, the randomized element makes his collection more valuable. A rare care remains rare and thus more valuable. If everyone gets exactly the same deck, then there is no value in collecting.

That collectible element doesn't make the D&D experience at my table even a little bit better. I'd rather WotC sell monster trading cards or something for those collectors (Theoretical Design: On the front, monster artwork. On the back, monster stats. The monsters come from WotC's current DDI pool of monsters, and are a supplemental to MM's and the like. Solos like Dragons and Orcus and such are rarer than underlings like Goblins and Orcs).

Does it matter if your Monopoly Chance deck has all the cards?

It would, but it's not really the completion that bothers me. It's that selling randomized boosters exploits a pretty destructive cognitive trick for monetary gain, and gives me no added benefit in my D&D games. The cards could be fun. The method with which they are being sold, however, seems pretty vile to me.