Fortune Cards Threads [Merged]

[JoeGKushner]

M'eh.

I'd rather see focus on setting material or stuff I'll actually use but it is a business and they're going to try to maximize that profit level.

 

[SkidAce]

I think I might buy enough for one deck. Then let the party find the deck in game. AS an artifiact.

"The Hand of Fate" as it were. So they can draw a card to alter fate. (And I will add slightly bad events if they are not already included).

Each time they use it...they alter reality and raise the artifiacts concordance...until...eventually...the UNTHINKABLE happens...

 

[Dungeoneer]

I don't see this product, as it exists today, really taking off. It's just completely extraneous to the game. Why would you spend your money collecting expensive cards that add very little value to the game? These cards aren't going to enable you to 'win' at D&D.

For this to work, the cards would have to be much more integral to the game. As others have suggested, they would have to replace powers or in some other way be integral to a character.

Incidentally, I really really hope they don't figure that out.

 

[Nytmare]

Lots of us have shuffled ideas like this into our own games, http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan.../271191-brainstorming-action-point-cards.html. Some of us have even gone so far as to have common, uncommon, and rare cards!

I don't really see this as the death knell some people are fearing. Yes it's a blatant marketing ploy to maximize sales, but so what. I'm kind of bummed that they're turning character options into a marketable war of escalation between players, but I don't think that we have to worry about it making one player being noticeably more powerful than the others because someone dropped 50 bucks on cards instead of 5.

[EDIT]

In the end, I'm probably not going to end up buying these, or letting them into my game. I kinda feel like our table is at maximum capacity for physical prop/resources, cards, marks, and tokens. They seem so close to what we're already doing with our action points, I'll probably just end up swiping a couple of ideas and mechanics and calling it a day.

 

[Bluenose]

I think I might pick up a few packs next time I'm going to be GMing 4e. Then, when someone manages something that makes people laugh/emote, rather than hand out a few XP, I'll crack a pack open and hand them one card. I like the idea of more random unexpected things happening; makes it more like real life.

 

[OnlineDM]

I put up a blog post about this, as have many others. Simply put, I plan to ignore these cards. I won't allow them in games that I DM, and if I'm a player in a home game I would vote against their inclusion.

My main worry is about Living Forgotten Realms - if they're REQUIRED in order to play, that makes me sad. I don't want to use them, so I would hope that I would be allowed as a player to just not use them or borrow some commons from someone and then not touch them. It annoys me that I will probably have to allow them as an LFR DM; I'd rather not. I wasn't a fan of the bonus cards that were legal in LFR until December 31, either, but I lived with them. I prefer to hand out bonus points for players doing awesome things that can be cashed in to add or subtract one from a die roll.

Yes, WotC is trying to make more money here, and that's their job. I don't expect this to work very well, at least based on the two cards they've shown so far (they look boring). I do find it distasteful, but I don't really care all that much since I won't be using the cards in my home games.

 

[blalien]

Remember how "Book of Nine Swords" was a test-bed for the mechanics of 4e? This is almost certainly a test-bed for the mechanics of 5e - if this product flies, expect to see the 5e powers available on a deck.

Well then that's a good thing, because I have very little confidence these cards will actually sell. My FLGS has three unwrapped boxes of Gamma World boosters sitting in the corner, collecting a thin layer of dust.

What you will probably see in the near future is your FLGS requiring you to buy Fortune boosters to play in their events. Which I have no problem with, because they go through a lot of trouble to organize these things.

 

[Riastlin]

I do find it distasteful, but I don't really care all that much since I won't be using the cards in my home games.

While I agree with you on the point that they are not for me, I think calling them distasteful is a bit harsh. Unnecessary? Sure. Boring? Perhaps. Detrimental to fun? Possibly. Distasteful? No. But of course, it all depends on one's definition of distasteful.

I do have to agree though that I kind of hope they are not successful since as others have suggested they might lead to a design decision for 5th ed. Collectible elements are fine with me so long as they are not a core part of the game. If feats/powers/traits/items/etc. suddenly require the randomly collected card, that would be bad. It would take away from what makes RPGs great (imho), which is the theory that you can play whoever/whatever you want. It would change it to "You can play whoever you want so long as you have enough money."

 

[OnlineDM]

While I agree with you on the point that they are not for me, I think calling them distasteful is a bit harsh. Unnecessary? Sure. Boring? Perhaps. Detrimental to fun? Possibly. Distasteful? No. But of course, it all depends on one's definition of distasteful.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to use overly harsh language. I meant that the idea that players who are willing to spend more money to get the "good" cards would have an advantage over the other players is distasteful. If that doesn't turn out to be the case with these cards, great! But from my previous years of playing Magic: The Gathering, I worry that this might happen.

The requirement to buy a pack or two of cards every time you want to play in an organized event that previously didn't require such purchases would also be distasteful if it happens. However, that might not happen, either.

 

[Cyronax]

YES!!!

NO!!!