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

[Dausuul]

What really puzzles me is the continuing trend to make both 4E and Pathfinder, i.e. most of the modern D&D experience, a "storygame", as opposed to a "role playing game". More thoughts on this.

Hmm.

Before I address this, I want to clarify the point under discussion, because conversations about "storygames" and "narrativism vs. simulationism" tend to get lost in a fog of vague, ill-defined terminology.

Your specific concern here, as I understand it, is the question: "What is the player's role in the game?" In other words, is the player supposed to see through the PC's eyes and manipulate the world through the PC's actions? Or is the player supposed to assume a more detached, "god's-eye view" and manipulate events in an abstract/metagame way?

If I'm correct, you see a trend in 3E and 4E toward the latter (which I'm going to call "third-person gaming"), away from previous games which assumed the former ("first-person gaming"). Yes?

From here on, I'm going to assume the above statements are correct. If they're not, disregard everything that follows.

I didn't see any such trend previous to 4E. In fact, I would have said 3E was the apotheosis of the "first-person" approach, trying to be extremely rigorous about simulating the way the world reacted to the PCs' first-person actions.

4E has definitely shifted toward the third person. (Like you, I'm hoping Essentials represents a turn back the other way.) However, I don't think it was a decision that "We think people will enjoy third-person better than first-person." Rather, I would say the 4E designers simply found it easier to make a third-person game--because in a third-person game, you don't have to worry about justifying your mechanics within the game world. You can foist off that job on the players.

In a first-person game, if you want to introduce a power like every 4E opponent's favorite hobbyhorse, "Come and Get It," you then have to answer questions like "What the heck is this power doing, and why does it work on enemy wizards, who have no conceivable reason to wade into melee?"

In a third-person game, you can shrug and say, "These are the mechanics. It's up to you, DM, to explain why the enemy wizard is doing this." When you're building a mechanically complex game from the ground up, it's very handy to be able to do that.

(Which is not to say I agree with the decision to do it. I just understand why one would make that decision.)

That said, 4E has not moved as far toward third-person as many people believe. You have to be willing to accept a few more Acceptable Breaks From Reality* (previous editions already had some major ABFRs, the XP system being probably the biggest), but you can still play it first-person. Come and Get It is an extreme example. Most powers work perfectly well from a first-person point of view.

[size=-2]*Warning: TVTropes link.[/size]

 

[cheard]

I wonder how 4e-specific they'll be. Can I use them for Pathfinder/3.xe? Can I use them for Savage Worlds/GURPS/M&M?

Based on what I've heard in interviews/recordings from GenCon, I'm assuming they'll be very 4e-specific. At least, I hope so. 4e, Pathfinder, M&M, etc. are similar enough that some cards could potentially cross systems, but only if written as least common denominator effects, which wouldn't really be very interesting. Take something as simple as "+1 speed" … that doesn't translate so well across 4e, Pathfinder, and M&M. For more examples, grab a Paizo Critical Hits deck; I used one for my 3.5e games, but it doesn't translate well to 4e.

I'm very interested to see how well these Fortune Cards work out, and I'm eager to give them a shot at my table. It's worth noting (must type that phrase very carefully, to avoid introducing a game-changing "h") that there are at least one or two third-party Fortune Card type products in the PDF product marketplace. Everybody knows these are completely optional products to be used at the DM's discretion. Just because it's WotC publishing Fortune Cards doesn't give Fortune Cards a different status in this regard; they're still optional products to be used at the DM's discretion, just like D&D Miniatures.

On a slightly different note, I've been confused by a couple of comments in earlier posts. I did not have the presence of mind to copy the links and such (sorry!), but here goes.

First, WotC has not eliminated the D&D Minis line in favor of tokens. They have repackaged the minis line back into randomly-packed boosters, increased the price , and introduced a fourth level of super-rare frequency , but they haven't given up on the minis line. At least, I am not aware of any such announcement. Certainly we have the Lords of Madness set coming in September, and the "limited edition" Beholders set coming out in October. The inclusion of tokens in Game Day materials and the new boxed sets is both a cost-saving measure and a gateway drug to actual miniatures. It gives new DMs and players—or those who haven't invested in miniatures—a way to represent the monsters and PCs on the table right away, but it doesn't presage a complete abandonment of WotC minis, as far as I can tell given my current level of information about the subject.

Second, as much fun as Hasbro-bashing might seem, it's precisely WotC's relationship with Hasbro that allows them to produce Dungeon Tiles, the new tokens, and such and sell them at relatively low prices. Or at least so I was told by a WotC employee just before WotC switched from the DT series to the DU series of Dungeon Tiles.

 

[Dr. Confoundo]

If this is true, it has got to be one of the most wrong-headed things I've seen WotC do... especially if this is suppose to get new people interested in Gamma World. Why on earth would someone who has never played GW before buy 2 packs of boosters, that have no purpose outside the game... in order to try out the game? This just doesn't make sense unless they are only targetting current GW players.

Think about it like this: your FLGS is considering hosting the Gamma World Game Day, and they've set aside room in their store for 10-20 people to try out the game. With WotC requiring that each participant purchase two packs of cards, they will then be buying at least ~$5 worth of product while they are in the store.

In some ways, it's an attempt to provide that the store gets at least a minimum amount of income from the people coming to the Game Day... in the same way that some CCG/CMG debut events have random booster tourneys.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Think about it like this: your FLGS is considering hosting the Gamma World Game Day, and they've set aside room in their store for 10-20 people to try out the game. With WotC requiring that each participant purchase two packs of cards, they will then be buying at least ~$5 worth of product while they are in the store.

In some ways, it's an attempt to provide that the store gets at least a minimum amount of income from the people coming to the Game Day... in the same way that some CCG/CMG debut events have random booster tourneys.

There is nothing wrong with hosting pay to play tournements. Requiring a purchase of product to play in a demo of a roleplaying game is a bit different. If the appeal of the game cannot be demonstrated with the contents that come with the game what message does that send?

Hey, here is a really neat new rpg that isn't that exciting to play unless you buy these add-on cards to go with it. Make sure the core game is good first, then push supplements.

 

[Joshua Randall]

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?

Manipulating people's minds to make a buck is marketing.

But in today's day and age, most consumers know that retailers are going to try to manipulate their minds. People know they are being mareketed to.

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.

Thank you for your permission to enjoy spending my own money on things I think I will enjoy experiencing or owning. I'll certainly sleep better tonight knowing that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It gives you a thing to use in your game... What else do you want???

It doesn't always give you a thing to use in your game (say, what if you get a repeat? Or what if you get a card that doesn't have much use for your character? Or what if the cards vary in power, like, say, feats of the same tier? Or what if one rare has prettier art than another?). That gambling mechanism is what makes it a bad purchase for some theoretical "purely rational consumer."

I love the idea of a Fate Deck, I hate the way it is being sold.

But in today's day and age, most consumers know that retailers are going to try to manipulate their minds. People know they are being mareketed to.

That doesn't really make it OK. Most people know that the KFC double-down is a horrible thing to put in your body. They do it anyway. I don't want to forbid it or make a law or say they can't sell it, but I am entirely free to recognize that it is a horrible thing to put in your body, and therefore, not eat it.

I'm free to recognize that the randomized booster pack is a cynical marketing ploy designed to exploit a cheap thrill (give WotC $4 for the simple chance to be awesome!), and, therefore, not want to buy it.

That doesn't really mean I have a problem with the people who want to buy it, or with WotC selling it, it just means my personal calibration for the level of marketing exploitation (or cholesterol) I'm willing to tolerate is perhaps a little lower than that of someone who doesn't care. My only point is that I have a problem with it. No one else has to.

Thank you for your permission to enjoy spending my own money on things I think I will enjoy experiencing or owning. I'll certainly sleep better tonight knowing that.

Listen, Sarcasmo, I just wanted to be crystal clear that I'm not jumping up on a soapbox and screaming that WotC should not be allowed to sell their little cardboard gaming bling however they think they should sell them. They can do whatever they want. Clearly. That doesn't mean I have to fall all over myself being totally cool with something that I see as problematic. And given how quick the snide discrediting of "oh you're just against a company making money" pops up in threads like this, I wanted to get it out of the way early on that no, that's not what's going on here.

Capiche?

 

[Greg K]

I think the card and collectible aspects of this are red herrings..

And, you would be wrong. I (who started the thread) and others have stated that we like the idea behind similar products (Torg Drama Deck, Savage World's Action Deck, Marvel Super Heroes Fate Deck, DC Universe Drama Deck, Paizo's deck). What we don't like is WOTC's collectible aspect w/ random boosters which those similar products that I mentioned did not have.

 

[Odhanan]

And, you would be wrong.

As far as YOU are concerned? Sure. As far as I am concerned? I'm right. I did start my sentence with "I think" and pursued with "what puzzles me" after all. You're free to think otherwise. Doesn't make me wrong as far as I am concerned.

 

[Terry DM]

I, for one, have lost several former TTRPGers to CCGs ... perhaps this is one way the WotC/Hasbro marketing teams have come up with to lure players back to traditional tabletop D&D and expose die-hards to the world of CCGs ...

I dunno ... I'm just speculating.

 

[Hussar]

For those of us outside of North America, what the heck is a KFC "double down"? Is it like "Roll up the Rim to Win?"