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

[Twowolves]

What 3.5 splatbook arms race?

Nearly every new class in a 3.5 splatbook was weaker than core. It was only when you allowed core classes to use the extra material (read clerics and wizards) that the power creep happened. And, all that really happened was the strongest classes got stronger.

If you actually used the new classes, there was almost no power creep.

Who said anything about new core classes? Splatbooks had feats and PrCs and they most definately got progressively more powerful as the 3.5 era went on. They constituted the "arms race" to which I am referring.

And, you're presuming that the power cards will make any sort of significant difference to the power level of the character, rather than having a group effect. Since we haven't actually seen the cards, that's just an assumption.

You're also presuming that this is a test bed for whatever comes next. While, yes, they did use SW Saga to test out 4e, there are also a barrel full of products that are just one off sorts of things and not linked to the next thing.

And you are presuming the opposite. No one in the marketplace has seen them yet. Why is it ok for one person to presume one thing and another to presume the opposite? Where you see a barrel full of one-off products, I see a barrel full of market-tested (and presumably passed over) products.

And yes, I presume it will lead to a power boost. Maybe not for just the owner of the card, but an overall positive boost. Otherwise, I can't see how a product that would have a net negative or a neutral effect would sell. "Buy these cards, they might get your character killed, or at best, have no real effect at all!"

Now, if, in the future, 5e is released and requires collectable cards, then you are perfectly in your rights to complain. But, piddling all over a product that some people apparently are looking forward to is just so negative. Vote with your wallet, but, why piddle on other people's fun?

Well, I'm not so much complaining, as voicing my opinion. And I have been voting with my wallet ever since 2008 or so. I don't care if others love it, more power to them. What I am saying, however, is that I was not happy with the direction WotC took D&D with 4th ed, and from what I see they are moving farther and farther away from a model that would win me back as a customer. That's all.

 

[Scribble]

I'm not worried about the hobby, it will be just fine.

The hobby itself is fine, and WOTC is concerned about the industry not the hobby.

You don't see how the two are related?

Sure- you can buy one book and play forever. That's a great thing about RPGs.

But we also like new stuff. We like buying books (in a weird sort of way though...) That new stuff takes money. The "industry" makes that money.

Just like any hobby out there there are industries surrounding them where fans of said hobby can get new stuff they enjoy and ultimately build their hobby.

The hobby supports the industry and the industry supports the hobby- it's a circle. The circle of gaming. Queue African inspired music, and Elton John.

The health of the hobby? Ha! Those truly concerned about the health of the hobby don't turn it into a collectible feeding frenzy just to get it to produce more revenue.

Hyperbole much?

You don't like card games- ok cool. Other people like collectible games, and the card aspects.

Just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's just a "feeding frenzy to produce more revenue" anymore then anything else game companies sell.

You just don't particularity like that product line.

I don't view it that way. I buy based on what I like and dislike and am willing to shell out for. Trying to support WotC with my dollars, irrespective of what they're putting out, is self-defeating in the long run; good products will succeed without my charity, and bad products should fail as quickly and decisively as possible so that WotC can dump them and move on.

The hobby gets plenty of my disposable cash. I have over a thousand dollars sunk into DDM alone. Granted, most of those purchases were online singles, not direct from WotC, but feeding the secondary market drives demand for the primary. I'm already gearing up to drop a bunch more money on Lords of Madness and Essentials; I feel no obligation to pony up extra in order to be a good gaming citizen.

That's fine. Like I said, I'm not arguing we should all go in everyday and buy a pack of cards. I'm simply saying that a few dollars to buy a pack of cards every so often at an event isn't a big deal to me particularly because it ultimately in my opinion helps the hobby in a big way.

I think in this case it's not just a case of good things succeed and bad things fail. There are a a lot of things out there competing for the gaming space- things that are easier to get into the TTRPGs. To survive they have to highlight the strengths of the game. I agree with WoTC that one of the strengths is the social aspect, and this is seen in the FLGS.

Some things fail simply because they're lost in the jumble of more flashy competition.

I can't help but feel if WoTC really cared about the FLGS, they'd offer them free boosters to use in the demos. Like they do the adventure packs and tokens. Although it used to be minis.

The danger in the current plan is for the poor FLGS that adds the extra staff and orders the extra product...only to have lackluster sales and turnout, which then makes them less likely to participate in the future.

Sure- there's a possible downside to every plan. But I think there's more incentive for a game store to even consider having a game day when the owner knows there's at least somewhat of a large chance he will profit from it from the start.

And it's a model I believe they've been using for years now for the card games. (As a result you see the store owners throwing a TON of card game events.)



Would people argue against a convention charging money for an attendance badge?

It's a similar concept. WoTC believes the in store events and FLGS help drive the hobby and industry. The events cost money, the FLGSs are loosing money.

WoTC seems to have a pretty good plan of action.

If you don't agree that the FLGS is important or that the in store events are good for the game/hobby/industry- that's fine. HEy you don't even have to agree it's the best plan of action...

But again- calling this just a money grab is kind of ignoring all the other aspects.

That's all.

 

[demetri0us]

I think it's quite wise of WotC to find a product like this and bring it to market. AND do it in such a way that it's actually useful. These cards appear to appeal to both players and DM's, and seem to allow WotC to have a revenue stream that might be sustainable, for a while anyway. Best of all? Nobody has to buy them to play. Or you could buy one and use just that. Or three people could pool their cards when they come to a table. Etc.

Good work I say.

 

[Scribble]

I don't use terrible analogies, just ones that others don't agree with.

But just for you, here's another one: when my satelite/cable provider wants me to subscribe to HBO, they give me a free weekend of HBO, they do NOT give me access to HBO then bill me for it, not even $6.

They DO rent you a cable box...

And if you were going into some other guys place in order to preview the HBO I'm pretty sure that guy would want something out of it.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I don't use terrible analogies, just ones that others don't agree with.

I don't have enough data to make a firm judgment, but with this thread as evidence, you are 2 for 2 on bad analogies. When the two things you are comparing are actually wildly different from each other in all their details, that's pretty much the definition of a bad analogy. The devil, after all, is in the details.

But just for you, here's another one: when my satelite/cable provider wants me to subscribe to HBO, they give me a free weekend of HBO, they do NOT give me access to HBO then bill me for it, not even $6.

They also sell a mainstream product to orders of magnitude more people, and it doesn't cost the service provider a ton of set up, extra hours of paid labor, and all the things that running free games cost an FLGS.

They push a button from a remote location and your cable box is allowed access to that content. From what I understand, this isn't even reflected individually in their contracts with content providers. Contrast that with Scribble's list of what goes into these things just at the local level, to say nothing of the coordination at WotC. Those public outreach programs have to justify their salaries and distribution, too.

Your analogy will be fair the day we all have set-top or table-top boxes that allow us to receive WotC game try-outs as software demos instead of physical objects that have to be run by people at remote locations.

Y'all want all the benefits of being a hobbyist AND all the benefits of being mainstream. It doesn't work that way in the real world. There are financial pinches as a result of treating it that way, mostly on the smaller guys, in this case, the FLGS. But I'm sure Hasbro frequently scratches their head about the business model here, as well. They're selling a boutique product but their customer base has a large segment of people who want to pretend it's mass market.

And most economists still use a "rational consumer" model. That's hysterical.

 

[Twowolves]

They DO rent you a cable box...

And if you were going into some other guys place in order to preview the HBO I'm pretty sure that guy would want something out of it.

You mean like how sports bars charge their customers extra to watch football games that are on expanded cable/satelite packages?

oh wait, most don't.

 

[Scribble]

You mean like how sports bars charge their customers extra to watch football games that are on expanded cable/satelite packages?

oh wait, most don't.

Sure... But then again go in there sit at a table, watch the game, and don't order anything. They love it when you do that.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You mean like how sports bars charge their customers extra to watch football games that are on expanded cable/satelite packages?

oh wait, most don't.

You don't think adding those satellite packages to their costs increased the price of food and drink?

Trust me, you're paying for it.

 

[Twowolves]

I don't have enough data to make a firm judgment, but with this thread as evidence, you are 2 for 2 on bad analogies. When the two things you are comparing are actually wildly different from each other in all their details, that's pretty much the definition of a bad analogy. The devil, after all, is in the details.

Like I said, just analogies you don't agree with. If every single detail of the two things being compared were identical, they wouldn't be analogies, now would they?


How about this, for a comparison (which is not, you know, an analogy):

Gameday GM at a FLGS: "Come in and try out a demo of the latest version of the post-apocolyptic RPG, Darwin's World, it's totally free!"

Other Gameday GM at the FLGS across town: "Come in and try out a demo of the latest version of the post-apocolyptic RPG, Gamma World, it'll only cost you two $3 boosters!"

There, now all of Scribble's costs are factored in. The makers of both DW and GW want me to buy their game, both have persuaded the FLGS to host a gameday event to get people to try out their game, both stores are out the time and effort and other intangibles required to host an event, but one company wants to charge $6/player to play what ammounts to a sales pitch.

 

[Twowolves]

You don't think adding those satellite packages to their costs increased the price of food and drink?

Trust me, you're paying for it.

If I go in on game day and order a beer, it doesn't cost me any more than it does on Tuesday night.

I'm sure they charge enough money in drinks and food to cover their costs, but I can sit and watch a game nonetheless, even if I order a glass of water.