Poll: D&D Fortune Cards

[The Gnome Queen]

WotC has been pushing these D&D fortune cards (info here: http://www.wizards.com/WPN/Sales/Article.aspx?x=fortune_cards_shadows ) lately and, while I understand the need to turn a profit, I don't understand why buying packs and packs of cards that can be played each round makes the game more exciting.

Isn't D&D supposed to have a bit of a sense of danger? Botching attack rolls round after round is annoying, but doesn't it make that one time you hit that much sweeter?

Parts of D&D are supposed to be scary! When you enter an ankheg lair or stumble into an ancient tomb and trigger a trap while a bunch of undead skeletons rise from the rubble, aren't you supposed to be a bit on edge?

Doesn't it build suspense when you keep missing your rolls, whatever they may be? It does for me! I think to myself, "How many more times can I keep missing before this creature kills us?" or "When will my ally use (x) power to help me?" It's all a gamble and isn't that what makes D&D fun?

I like to be challenged and feel a bit of concern about my character making it through the adventure. Any good DM will help ensure I don't die too much if the entire group is working well together.

I feel that using fortune cards is taking away some of the excitement, suspense and danger of past editions. I don't see the point of wasting my money on a deck of "get out of jail free" cards that can be used EVERY ROUND.

Maybe it's just me.... I dunno.

Does anyone enjoy using them? If so, please explain how they've "added" to your game!

 

[The Gnome King]

I think it's a blatant way for WoTC to try and earn more profits; ala their "Magic: The Gathering" game. People are still buying M:tG cards; not so much 4th edition D&D books. Personally I feel it's a horrible, horrible idea. People who want a collectible trading card game have many to choose from and people who play D&D usually aren't wanting to also turn it into a collectible trading card game. The following links:

Enworld:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/299860-4-hours-w-rsd-who-am-i.html

Amazon Fantasy Gaming Sales Ranking: http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/16211/ref=zg_bs_nav

ICV:
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/19177.html

Pretty much show why WoTC is doing this. I think they're on the wrong path, though. This just reeks of profit-desperation.

 

[The Gnome Queen]

Pretty much show why WoTC is doing this. I think they're on the wrong path, though. This just reeks of profit-desperation.

They could allow their books to be purchased digitally. I think they'd see an influx of $$. Who likes lugging around 15lbs of books when it's game time anyway?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Wait. When did D&D go Gamma World?

 

[The Gnome Queen]

Wait. When did D&D go Gamma World?

Late last year... or early this year. There is a tabletop version and a boardgame, but you need to keep buying the "expansion packs" for the boardgame if you want to keep playing - from what I've seen.

 

[Elamdri]

Snip

Wizards has been trying to do two things with DND since 4th addition. Make it more profitable and make it more accessible. Obviously, something like this makes it more profitable, since it works off their very successful Magic model.

When it comes to accessibility, one of the things they've been working very hard to do is to standardize the game. A big factor in the standardization is to get the RNG aspect under control. The problem with any game that works off of RNG is that it's an arbitrary system of success and failure. You roll a 1, so you lose; you roll a 20, you win.

The fact of the matter is that any game where success or failure on an encounter can turn entirely on the RNG is a POORLY DESIGNED ENCOUNTER. Likewise, the same can be said for any system that uses RNG. The problem is that the stuff you talk about, suspense and the like, that should come from the encounter design and enemy mechanics, not from the RNG.

I played a game a while back where we had a TPK because our healer was rolling consistently poorly on the heals and the monsters kept saving from a lot of spells. Here, no one in the party did anything WRONG, but the party was still punished and lost due to the RNG.

Now, if you have a Good DM, they can mitigate these things. Whenever I DM, I am pretty loose with my "rolls" to provide a better experience for the players. I will change the outcomes of saves and crits when I feel it suits the flow of the battle, to create that sense of suspense and urgency. However, not only is that very taxing on the DM, who already has the job of orchestrating combat, but it's something the DM can only apply to the monsters. I can fudge the rolls all day to give the healer an opportunity to save a character or for the players to finish off the boss, but if they are consistently rolling poorly, there is nothing I can do, apart from Deux Ex Machina. It would be BETTER if the system was built to take this into account.

That's why they made the changes in 4e. Healing is standardized. Health is standardized. Attack and Damage rolls are Standardized. Saves are standardized. Sure, you can still fail, and even multiple times in a row, but the chances of you being severely punished for things like that are not nearly as bad. And that's what I think these Fortune cards are trying to do, is to help standardize the combat.

Now, if you think that this system might unbalance things for the players, there are obvious solutions. 1st, and most obviously, THIS IS AN OPTIONAL FEATURE. If you don't like it don't use it. And don't forget, the DM is God, their word is law. If they say no, then the answer is no. 2nd, Look to house rules! You could instead of letting players use them each encounter, make them like action points, and give them one a day. Or, you could let the monsters draw from the pile as well, giving the monsters the same advantages. There are plenty of solutions if you see this as a problem.

 

[Elamdri]

There was a time when DND was all about Roleplaying.
That was a long time ago.

Why can't it still be about Roleplaying. I can't find the page in my 4e rulebook that says roleplaying is disallowed.

 

[Elamdri]

Compare say 2:nd Edition's Roleplaying pages to that of 4:th Edition.

I dunno about you, but my groups I play with do as much RPing regardless of system, be it 3.5 or 4e (never played 2nd)

 

[Elamdri]

I don't play simply.
But I read the rulebooks.

4:th Edition doesn't forbid it obviously but the focus is on Game and most people to my knowledge who plays it does not roleplay, the game. Now, compare that to say 2:nd Edition and everyone I've heard about who played that roleplayed for a very extensive period. It feels like I'm phrasing myself wrong here but let's put it like this;

Older edition - Encourages to Roleplay.
Newer edition - Encourages to game.

I could see that sure, but what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing about 4e that prevents you from Roleplaying. At the end of the day, DnD is the game, the Roleplaying is more or less what the players bring to the table. I have one group I play with that is very combat/game focused, and another group that isn't. (Ironically the more combat focused group plays 3.5)

The real problem I guess is that Roleplaying and rules aren't really hand-in-hand concepts. Yeah, you might roll a Diplomacy check every once in a while, but Roleplaying is born from the imagination, not the Player's Handbook. I suppose that the Player's Handbook could include a section on Roleplaying with tips, but if a player doesn't have that spark, then the book isn't going to provide it.

 

[Elamdri]

Ahh, true enough.
People will still insist on roleplaying "Uber Ulf"~

Where things get difficult is where you have a group where some people want to RP, and some don't. It's kind of hard to balance things out so everyone has a good time, since RPing takes time, and time spent RPing is time spent not fighting, and that is disadvantageous to players who only enjoy the combat aspect. Likewise, if you have players who only really enjoy RPing, then the more time you throw encounters at them, the less time that they have to RP.

I try to mix in a bit of RP into encounters to keep people happy, but it only goes so far.

 

[The Gnome King]

Wizards has been trying to do two things with DND since 4th addition. Make it more profitable and make it more accessible. Obviously, something like this makes it more profitable, since it works off their very successful Magic model.

Except nobody is buying these cards, either. A lot of players feel like it's a money grab from WoTC, and it is. It's not making the game more profitable for them; it's driving people away to Paizo's Pathfinder series and the OGL that much more.

When it comes to accessibility, one of the things they've been working very hard to do is to standardize the game. A big factor in the standardization is to get the RNG aspect under control. The problem with any game that works off of RNG is that it's an arbitrary system of success and failure. You roll a 1, so you lose; you roll a 20, you win.

The fact of the matter is that any game where success or failure on an encounter can turn entirely on the RNG is a POORLY DESIGNED ENCOUNTER. Likewise, the same can be said for any system that uses RNG. The problem is that the stuff you talk about, suspense and the like, that should come from the encounter design and enemy mechanics, not from the RNG.

Sure. But this has been the core of tabletop roleplaying fun since... forever. And games like Amber Diceless (anyone remember Amber Diceless roleplaying?) did away with the RNG just fine; without resorting to turning gaming into a collectible card game.

I played a game a while back where we had a TPK because our healer was rolling consistently poorly on the heals and the monsters kept saving from a lot of spells. Here, no one in the party did anything WRONG, but the party was still punished and lost due to the RNG.

This is where a good DM comes in. They can not only mitigate these things, they can make them non-issues.

Now, if you have a Good DM, they can mitigate these things. Whenever I DM, I am pretty loose with my "rolls" to provide a better experience for the players. I will change the outcomes of saves and crits when I feel it suits the flow of the battle, to create that sense of suspense and urgency. However, not only is that very taxing on the DM, who already has the job of orchestrating combat, but it's something the DM can only apply to the monsters.

It's much less taxing on a DM than adding collectible trading cards to a game, I can tell you that much. I am 32. I have been running games - at conventions - since HexaCon II in Arizona. I was THIRTEEN years old, maybe TWELVE years old - at that time. I had no issues even at that age of altering the flow of combat and/or bad rolls to assist my characters. If you can't handle focusing on story over a RNG/combat system when having total control over how your monsters react, fight, save - HELL - with the ability to have a random NPC you've been saving jump in and save the day - or maybe one of those orcs drops dead because of a reason nobody knows; and THAT becomes a mystery in and of itself.

I just think the focus should be on improving DM and player skills; not on turning a tabletop ROLEplaying game into a tabletop CARD game. I have Three-Dragon Ante if I want to play cards with my friends.

I just don't see how running combat is "taxing" on the DM even when done right; and if you're going for gritty realism/randomness - have a character die every now and then. Sometimes that advances the story best.

In 20 years of DMing, I just haven't ever had a problem with this; and I am by far from the best DM I know.

I can fudge the rolls all day to give the healer an opportunity to save a character or for the players to finish off the boss, but if they are consistently rolling poorly, there is nothing I can do, apart from Deux Ex Machina. It would be BETTER if the system was built to take this into account.

I have no problem with a lot of the changes they made in 4e and I have a lot of problems with a few changes... still I am just reeling from the possibility that a DM would seem so strait-jacketed into a die rolling system that it would be "difficult" for him or her to overcome these difficulties.

That's why they made the changes in 4e. Healing is standardized. Health is standardized. Attack and Damage rolls are Standardized. Saves are standardized. Sure, you can still fail, and even multiple times in a row, but the chances of you being severely punished for things like that are not nearly as bad. And that's what I think these Fortune cards are trying to do, is to help standardize the combat.

And you did see my links above which show WotC is doing something WRONG with all this standardization. I don't want my game dumbed down. 4th edition did that enough; these cards just take the cake. There is a REASON why WoTC is LOSING market share and Paizo Publishing is GAINING a LOT of market share with its Pathfinder system; a beautifully written system where, yeah, not everything is standardized. Standardizing everything makes everything boring as Hell. When you can't tell the difference between playing a Wizard or a Fighter at 1st level; that's boring as Hell. I remember when you needed your wizards to act carefully and have them protected by some bigger, stronger members of the party. Not anymore! You can build a Wizard like a fighter! You can build a fighter like a wizard with mass crowd control and controller-effects.

Where's the imagination when you remove spells like "Time Stop" and "Wish" and - Hell - even illusions? Do you know how fun it was for me to use creative illusions with my gnome illusionist characters and "win" through creativity and thought, not brute force and dice rolls?

The best DMs can practically throw out the dice completely, not add another layer of "things I need to buy" on top of them!

Now, if you think that this system might unbalance things for the players, there are obvious solutions. 1st, and most obviously, THIS IS AN OPTIONAL FEATURE. If you don't like it don't use it. And don't forget, the DM is God, their word is law. If they say no, then the answer is no. 2nd, Look to house rules! You could instead of letting players use them each encounter, make them like action points, and give them one a day. Or, you could let the monsters draw from the pile as well, giving the monsters the same advantages. There are plenty of solutions if you see this as a problem.

Honestly, for me, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't like the direction that WoTC is taking 4th edition and so I've gone back to the "roots" of gaming with games like Castles & Crusades - which Gygax himself had a hand in making - and Pathfinder, which is just a beautiful and elegant game that still allows you to create characters that feel DIFFERENT from one another.

Seriously, combat in 4th edition was mostly flavor text for us at some point since EVERYONE in the group was "standardized" to do basically the same things, in the same ways. Wizards didn't feel epic or strange anymore; they were just fighters with slightly worse AC designed to hit multiple opponents at once. Yawn.

And this is why I will no longer support WoTC with my money; except by my D&D Insider account which basically gives me all the crap they do for $10 a month. Sad, really, because I was trying to work with 4th edition but the card-game thing just left a bad, bad taste in my mouth.

Have you read through Castles & Crusades? Simple rules, beautifully elegant system... just... yeah.

I think I'm pretty much done with WoTC until they stop trying to come up with creative ways to profit from their gamers and make a product people actually want to buy. Take that development team money spent on the cards and, I don't know - maybe finish the D&D insider tools that were promised to us years ago? Maybe give me that virtual DM table I've been wanting and hoping for, fix the bugs in your character creator, make your books available for purchase online and in PDF format like Paizo does?

Instead they try to sell us more crap - like cards - that will be disCARDed when the next edition comes out.

Sigh. Rant over. I do appreciate your input, sorry if you feel like I was taking that out on you - I'm just frustrated with WoTC.

 

[The Gnome King]

There was a time when DND was all about Roleplaying.
That was a long time ago.

Why can't it still be about Roleplaying. I can't find the page in my 4e rulebook that says roleplaying is disallowed.

Things like standardizing every character and adding another distraction - collectible trading cards - just takes players away from the focus on RP and puts it on another outside source of "uber power" ...

 

[The Gnome King]

I don't play simply.
But I read the rulebooks.

4:th Edition doesn't forbid it obviously but the focus is on Game and most people to my knowledge who plays it does not roleplay, the game. Now, compare that to say 2:nd Edition and everyone I've heard about who played that roleplayed for a very extensive period. It feels like I'm phrasing myself wrong here but let's put it like this;

Older edition - Encourages to Roleplay.
Newer edition - Encourages to game.

I could see that sure, but what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing about 4e that prevents you from Roleplaying. At the end of the day, DnD is the game, the Roleplaying is more or less what the players bring to the table. I have one group I play with that is very combat/game focused, and another group that isn't. (Ironically the more combat focused group plays 3.5)

The real problem I guess is that Roleplaying and rules aren't really hand-in-hand concepts. Yeah, you might roll a Diplomacy check every once in a while, but Roleplaying is born from the imagination, not the Player's Handbook. I suppose that the Player's Handbook could include a section on Roleplaying with tips, but if a player doesn't have that spark, then the book isn't going to provide it.

I tossed the entire "skill challenge" system in my 4th edition games. It was ridiculous.

You want to woo the baron of the small village to get him to do something for you? OK, what's your charisma and diplomacy scores - OK, cool.

Now roleplay what you say, and what you do.

I have NO need to run a system of endless die rolls. I, as the DM, will take into account if you're a charismatic person with a high diplo or an ugly half-orc with a low diplo, and roleplay the Baron's actions towards you accordingly.

I don't need no stinking "skill challenge" - trying to scale that mountain? And you're a weak wizard who doesn't know how to climb? I might require some rolls... or I might not. An acrobat thief with a great strength, dex, and climb score? You can probably scurry up that hill with no problem.

I found a gaming store in our new home-to-be and one of the first things I plan on doing is running a workshop for DM's. The turn from roleplaying and learning how to tell a story into endless standardization and card collecting SHALL NOT PASS.

 

[Elamdri]

Except nobody is buying these cards, either. A lot of players feel like it's a money grab from WoTC, and it is. It's not making the game more profitable for them; it's driving people away to Paizo's Pathfinder series and the OGL that much more.

Oh of course it's a money grab. But remember, it is an optional system. Of course, I can see people becoming upset with the idea of a money grab, but the way I look at it, Wizards is there to make money, and I don't have a problem with them trying to do that if it doesn't hurt my game in some way, which it does. And yeah Pathfinder is a great 3.5 system (and it's the one I play when I do 3.5) but they do the same thing! Critical Hit Deck, Critical Fumble Deck, Plot Twist Cards (which are pretty much Fortune Cards), yadda yadda. Hell, Paizo has cards for basic items like sunrods and the like, which I think is the stupidest idea ever, and I have no idea why you would pay for a card with a picture of a mundane item on it. Yet no one seems to complain about Paizo.

Sure. But this has been the core of tabletop roleplaying fun since... forever. And games like Amber Diceless (anyone remember Amber Diceless roleplaying?) did away with the RNG just fine; without resorting to turning gaming into a collectible card game.

Again, I'm just going to stress here, it's OPTIONAL. Now, when they change the rules to make it so that you NEED those cards to play, then yeah, that's pretty bad. But I see no reason to get upset over them offering players an optional expansion to the game that the player has to pay for.

I played a game a while back where we had a TPK because our healer was rolling consistently poorly on the heals and the monsters kept saving from a lot of spells. Here, no one in the party did anything WRONG, but the party was still punished and lost due to the RNG.

This is where a good DM comes in. They can not only mitigate these things, they can make them non-issues.

But not every DM is a good DM. There are tons of different DM types out there.

It's much less taxing on a DM than adding collectible trading cards to a game, I can tell you that much. I am 32. I have been running games - at conventions - since HexaCon II in Arizona. I was THIRTEEN years old, maybe TWELVE years old - at that time. I had no issues even at that age of altering the flow of combat and/or bad rolls to assist my characters. If you can't handle focusing on story over a RNG/combat system when having total control over how your monsters react, fight, save - HELL - with the ability to have a random NPC you've been saving jump in and save the day - or maybe one of those orcs drops dead because of a reason nobody knows; and THAT becomes a mystery in and of itself.

I just think the focus should be on improving DM and player skills; not on turning a tabletop ROLEplaying game into a tabletop CARD game. I have Three-Dragon Ante if I want to play cards with my friends.

I just don't see how running combat is "taxing" on the DM even when done right; and if you're going for gritty realism/randomness - have a character die every now and then. Sometimes that advances the story best.

In 20 years of DMing, I just haven't ever had a problem with this; and I am by far from the best DM I know.

Well, I will admit that neither I, nor any other DMs I know have 20 years of DMing under our belts (I don't even think collectively). So I will defer that it might be a lack of experience/prep time/ingenuity. I do my best obviously when I run a game, and I will Deus Ex or fudge when I need to. I'll kill party members but I won't go out of my way to do so. But not every DM is like me. I know DMs that are very rule-nazi like and will take 5-10 mins to look up rules to make sure that they're doing things by the book, despite breaking flow. It's even worse when the players rule nazi as well. Furthermore, there are some DM's who just don't care or even want to see the party have a bad time because they view the party/DM system as adversarial. "Oh, you missed three times in a row? Goody, that means I have a better chance of 'winning'"

Personally, I see this as a misunderstanding of the role between the DM and the players. The DM does not WIN the game when he kills the party. But there are people who DM this way. I tend not to play with them, but I'm not the only player in the world. I think the problem is though that if you play this way, you're playing to the exclusion of the 4-5 other people playing with you.

I have no problem with a lot of the changes they made in 4e and I have a lot of problems with a few changes... still I am just reeling from the possibility that a DM would seem so strait-jacketed into a die rolling system that it would be "difficult" for him or her to overcome these difficulties.

I would say that my complaint tends to come more from the aspect of a player in that regards, rather than the DM. Where I only have problems with DMing is when players roll consistently low so that I can't even fudge the monster's AC to give them a hit or when they players have figured out the monster's AC by process of elimination and now I can't really fudge the rolls. Obviously I could do what you say and Deus Ex it somehow, but I prefer not to do that, because I think that it defeats the purpose of encounters. My ideal encounter is one where players are rewarded for making the right decisions and punished for making bad decisions. Usually I can facilitate that as DM, but I occasionally run into problems.

And you did see my links above which show WotC is doing something WRONG with all this standardization. I don't want my game dumbed down. 4th edition did that enough; these cards just take the cake. There is a REASON why WoTC is LOSING market share and Paizo Publishing is GAINING a LOT of market share with its Pathfinder system; a beautifully written system where, yeah, not everything is standardized. Standardizing everything makes everything boring as Hell. When you can't tell the difference between playing a Wizard or a Fighter at 1st level; that's boring as Hell. I remember when you needed your wizards to act carefully and have them protected by some bigger, stronger members of the party. Not anymore! You can build a Wizard like a fighter! You can build a fighter like a wizard with mass crowd control and controller-effects.

I would argue that what you are describing is Homogenization, not Standardization, which I view as two different concepts. And I will agree that Homogenization is bad, although I think that sometimes it can be necessary to maintain a balance of power among class rolls. And honestly, I love Pathfinder, it's a GREAT system. But I also really enjoy 4e, and I think that 4e is also a fun, different system.

Where's the imagination when you remove spells like "Time Stop" and "Wish" and - Hell - even illusions? Do you know how fun it was for me to use creative illusions with my gnome illusionist characters and "win" through creativity and thought, not brute force and dice rolls?

The best DMs can practically throw out the dice completely, not add another layer of "things I need to buy" on top of them!

The best DMs might, but at the same time, most DMs are not "The best." One of the reasons that I like clear rules is that while some spells like "Stone Shape" might be really fun, it can lead to some headache inducing rules arguments. I think the problem stems from DMs who don't offer players the opportunity to be as creative as you described. Just recently I got into an argument with my DM over what I could do with some of my spells and it gets frustrating when you can't take advantage of your abilities.

That's one of the reasons I like 4e. Sure, Pathfinder offers me a lot more flexibility with powers, but if my DM won't let me use those flexibilities because it's not clear in the rules, then what's the point? Am I not then benefited more by a system with a clear set of rules.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes the rules and the DM don't fit well.

Honestly, for me, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't like the direction that WoTC is taking 4th edition and so I've gone back to the "roots" of gaming with games like Castles & Crusades - which Gygax himself had a hand in making - and Pathfinder, which is just a beautiful and elegant game that still allows you to create characters that feel DIFFERENT from one another.

Well, here is my thing. Many moons ago, I used to play Type 2 Magic Competitively. Now if you wanna talk about a Money Sink, Type 2 is the most evil thing ever imagined. That's really why I don't care so much about the Fortune cards. Wizards isn't forcing me to buy those cards like they forced me to cycle out my sets every year with Magic. Not saying I can't understand where you are coming from, I just don't view it as being that big of a deal since they're optional.

Seriously, combat in 4th edition was mostly flavor text for us at some point since EVERYONE in the group was "standardized" to do basically the same things, in the same ways. Wizards didn't feel epic or strange anymore; they were just fighters with slightly worse AC designed to hit multiple opponents at once. Yawn.

I don't really notice that all too much in our campaigns, although we have a pretty diverse group of strikers, leaders, controllers, and defenders. I think it can depend somewhat on how you chose to build and play your characters.

And this is why I will no longer support WoTC with my money; except by my D&D Insider account which basically gives me all the crap they do for $10 a month. Sad, really, because I was trying to work with 4th edition but the card-game thing just left a bad, bad taste in my mouth.

I purchased an Insider Account and canceled it about a week into it and made them give me a refund. I specifically purchased it because a friend told me that there was an online character builder, and when I actually got to use it, it was a non-functioning piece of garbage that crashed before I could finish a character. I was not happy and I refuse to pay for it until they make it functional.

Have you read through Castles & Crusades? Simple rules, beautifully elegant system... just... yeah.

I really don't have as much time to play as I used to, so I'm not really shopping around for a new system. I mostly run 4e and Pathfinder because that's what everyone I know runs. I'm sure that there are some great systems out there, but I'm just not looking to move on atm, it's not the right time.

I think I'm pretty much done with WoTC until they stop trying to come up with creative ways to profit from their gamers and make a product people actually want to buy. Take that development team money spent on the cards and, I don't know - maybe finish the D&D insider tools that were promised to us years ago? Maybe give me that virtual DM table I've been wanting and hoping for, fix the bugs in your character creator, make your books available for purchase online and in PDF format like Paizo does?

Instead they try to sell us more crap - like cards - that will be disCARDed when the next edition comes out.

I already voiced my unhappiness with DnD insider, and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Magic is more or less Wizard's CashCow. I actually read a post on a blog that I agreed with where he opined that what Wizards should do is release a Magic campaign setting for DnD. Personally, I think that would be fun, and really interesting. Perhaps that would give Wizards the incentive to really improve the terrible DnD Insider service.

EDIT: Found that blog post: http://greywulf.net/2011/01/fortune-cards-and-why-wotc-should-just-man-up/

And again, I kinda fail to see why Paizo gets a pass on it's card stuff just because right now people like Pathfinder a lot more than DnD. If it's the cards themselves that are bad, isn't what Paizo is doing just as bad?

Sigh. Rant over. I do appreciate your input, sorry if you feel like I was taking that out on you - I'm just frustrated with WoTC.

No worries! Always happy to have a civil discussion about gaming! I cherish them actually, since they happen so rarely.

 

[The Gnome King]

Oh of course it's a money grab. But remember, it is an optional system. Of course, I can see people becoming upset with the idea of a money grab, but the way I look at it, Wizards is there to make money, and I don't have a problem with them trying to do that if it doesn't hurt my game in some way, which it does. And yeah Pathfinder is a great 3.5 system (and it's the one I play when I do 3.5) but they do the same thing! Critical Hit Deck, Critical Fumble Deck, Plot Twist Cards (which are pretty much Fortune Cards), yadda yadda. Hell, Paizo has cards for basic items like sunrods and the like, which I think is the stupidest idea ever, and I have no idea why you would pay for a card with a picture of a mundane item on it. Yet no one seems to complain about Paizo.

I don't really like that Paizo is doing it either, for what it's worth. Though I will admit I've never really seen any of these objects in a gaming store, where I have seen the WoTC cards fairly prominently displayed. Expand my dislike of such things to Paizo.

Again, I'm just going to stress here, it's OPTIONAL. Now, when they change the rules to make it so that you NEED those cards to play, then yeah, that's pretty bad. But I see no reason to get upset over them offering players an optional expansion to the game that the player has to pay for.

I think the fear is that it's optional today but what about for D&D 4.5? 5.0? How long will these things be optional? Is it just WoTC testing the waters to see if they can get people on this bandwagon? I just don't like it, being a grumpy old man, I suppose.

But not every DM is a good DM. There are tons of different DM types out there.

Fair enough... but do you think that adding another needless prop (like "fortune cards" or "plot twist cards" or such nonsense) is helping make DMs better DMs, or is it hindering their growth by allowing them to get by on cheap gimmicks instead of expanding their skill set? I wonder sometimes...

Well, I will admit that neither I, nor any other DMs I know have 20 years of DMing under our belts (I don't even think collectively). So I will defer that it might be a lack of experience/prep time/ingenuity. I do my best obviously when I run a game, and I will Deus Ex or fudge when I need to. I'll kill party members but I won't go out of my way to do so. But not every DM is like me. I know DMs that are very rule-nazi like and will take 5-10 mins to look up rules to make sure that they're doing things by the book, despite breaking flow. It's even worse when the players rule nazi as well. Furthermore, there are some DM's who just don't care or even want to see the party have a bad time because they view the party/DM system as adversarial. "Oh, you missed three times in a row? Goody, that means I have a better chance of 'winning'"

Usually it's the newer DMs who really don't understand that the game is supposed to be a cooperative story between them and the characters/players, not an adversarial game with them "against" the players. I tend to see this behavior and try to gently 'correct' it pretty quickly in DMs when I see it and I'll flat-out leave a game if I don't feel like they're getting the spirit of the game. Running a hard core game where the rules are enforced and death is a real possibility is fine; getting your kicks out of trying to kill the players off isn't ever fine. (Unless your players are into that sort of thing, I guess.) As for rules-lawyers, they just need to be dealt with firmly - "No, Johnny, you can't look up that rule right now; we're in the middle of combat. Please write down your concern and we'll talk about it AFTER the game but for now my ruling stands."

Personally, I see this as a misunderstanding of the role between the DM and the players. The DM does not WIN the game when he kills the party. But there are people who DM this way. I tend not to play with them, but I'm not the only player in the world. I think the problem is though that if you play this way, you're playing to the exclusion of the 4-5 other people playing with you.

I'd say everyone "wins" the game when everyone is having fun.

I would say that my complaint tends to come more from the aspect of a player in that regards, rather than the DM. Where I only have problems with DMing is when players roll consistently low so that I can't even fudge the monster's AC to give them a hit or when they players have figured out the monster's AC by process of elimination and now I can't really fudge the rolls. Obviously I could do what you say and Deus Ex it somehow, but I prefer not to do that, because I think that it defeats the purpose of encounters. My ideal encounter is one where players are rewarded for making the right decisions and punished for making bad decisions. Usually I can facilitate that as DM, but I occasionally run into problems.

Sure, but there are other things you can do. Maybe the player misses, but maybe you just "pretend" to roll for the orcs that next round, deciding that they're going to miss as well. Maybe you halve the hit points the orcs are supposed to have. Maybe you decide that one of the orcs has a heart condition and drops dead from the exhaustion in battle, and make a fun mystery out of it for the players:

"You swing and miss the orc badly but you notice something strange - the pig faced creature's mouth twists into a grimace and he clutches his chest just as if you HAD struck him a fatal blow. You're not sure what is happening, but the foul creature falls to the ground and looks at you almost pleadingly, the hate leaving its eyes as it is replaced by something that is clearly a mixture of dread and fear."

Soooo many plot devices that could happen here. The players could wonder if they are being helped by a mysterious, unseen mage. The players could capture the orc and offer it healing magic, figuring out it is suffering from some kind of malady and its tribe would never accept him back because of his "weakness" - so they gain an unlikely ally, etc., etc. This, my friend, is storytelling at its finest - taking a perceived bad thing (players can't roll to hit your monsters and are getting slaughtered) and turning it into a good thing. Maybe ALL the orcs are sick, if the players are REALLY overmatched - and it turns into an adventure hook leading the players to discover an evil druid and a dangerous, poisoned spring of water nearby... maybe...

See? Not so much Deus Ex mode as it is simply adapting and keeping it fun on the fly.

I would argue that what you are describing is Homogenization, not Standardization, which I view as two different concepts. And I will agree that Homogenization is bad, although I think that sometimes it can be necessary to maintain a balance of power among class rolls. And honestly, I love Pathfinder, it's a GREAT system. But I also really enjoy 4e, and I think that 4e is also a fun, different system.

I guess I never saw a need for a balance of power among class roles. You can play a sneaky thief type - I always favored the gnome illusionist, personally, definitely not the "power gamer's" choice - or the chatty bard, when I played a character in a game. My power came from my imagination and my roleplaying, not my statistics and dice rolls.

Of course, in a combat-heavy game where all you're doing is rolling dice and mashing monsters, you're not going to have a lot of fun - but those aren't my types of games, anyway.

Maybe what I really miss/pine for is a glut of really, really good DMs like I remember there being in the halcyon days of my youth, when I was often the youngest and not the oldest at the table.

The best DMs might, but at the same time, most DMs are not "The best." One of the reasons that I like clear rules is that while some spells like "Stone Shape" might be really fun, it can lead to some headache inducing rules arguments. I think the problem stems from DMs who don't offer players the opportunity to be as creative as you described. Just recently I got into an argument with my DM over what I could do with some of my spells and it gets frustrating when you can't take advantage of your abilities.

That's one of the reasons I like 4e. Sure, Pathfinder offers me a lot more flexibility with powers, but if my DM won't let me use those flexibilities because it's not clear in the rules, then what's the point? Am I not then benefited more by a system with a clear set of rules.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes the rules and the DM don't fit well.

I can see this; I often tell people that 4th edition D&D is "good for beginners" for that reason. You don't need to worry about "time stop" and "wish" and "polymorph other" and things like that. But I see it as a stepping stone to a more flexible system now as opposed to a really good system on its own. I suppose it might work for a bunch of number-crunchers who like everything to be balanced, every class to have equal combat opportunities to offer, etc. I see some of the "character optimization" posts on the WoTC boards and frankly, they give me a headache. Where's the "roleplaying optimization" posts?

I purchased an Insider Account and canceled it about a week into it and made them give me a refund. I specifically purchased it because a friend told me that there was an online character builder, and when I actually got to use it, it was a non-functioning piece of garbage that crashed before I could finish a character. I was not happy and I refuse to pay for it until they make it functional.

Really? I've never had a problem with mine. That would indeed suck and I wouldn't pay for it either. It works great for both my wife and I, though, barring the errata that exists up on the site and a few "known issues" that everyone has to deal with. I like it better than any other chargen system, though - certainly it's my favorite thing about 4th edition.

I actually read a post on a blog that I agreed with where he opined that what Wizards should do is release a Magic campaign setting for DnD. Personally, I think that would be fun, and really interesting. Perhaps that would give Wizards the incentive to really improve the terrible DnD Insider service.

A M:tG D&D world would be fine as LONG AS WE WEREN'T FORCED TO USE OR BUY CARDS.

EDIT: Found that blog post: http://greywulf.net/2011/01/fortune-cards-and-why-wotc-should-just-man-up/

And again, I kinda fail to see why Paizo gets a pass on it's card stuff just because right now people like Pathfinder a lot more than DnD. If it's the cards themselves that are bad, isn't what Paizo is doing just as bad?

It probably is, I just haven't been exposed to it as much.

No worries! Always happy to have a civil discussion about gaming! I cherish them actually, since they happen so rarely.

People do treat gaming as a subset of religion and politics at times, don't they?

 

[The Gnome King]

Ugh. I see exactly where WoTC is going with this now:

http://www.wizards.com/WPN/Sales/Article.aspx?x=fortune_cards_shadows

For some Wizards Play Network programs aimed at experienced players, Fortune Card purchase will be a requirement to participate, but our broadly-appealing programs like D&D Encounters will feature their use without such a requirement. Once you start using them, you?ll see that they actually help to focus player actions and provide interesting tactical opportunities that you may not have considered previously.
-WoTC Website

And I think this might be why people aren't bashing Paizo as badly as WoTC - WoTC is admitting that they are trying to make these things... uh, less than optional.

And I don't want a collectible card trading game with "uncommon" "common" and "rare" cards infiltrating my D&D game; if I wanted to play M:tG I'd play M:tG. I *hate* M:tG for the record. Nothing against those who like it; just not my cup of tea.

It's like this - I like tea, green tea in particular. Not so much into Starbucks coffee. If my tea merchant started selling coffee grounds along with tea; fine. If my tea merchant started forcing me to ingest coffee by putting grounds IN my expensive matcha tea I'd be one ticked off gnome.

 

[Elamdri]

I think the fear is that it's optional today but what about for D&D 4.5? 5.0? How long will these things be optional? Is it just WoTC testing the waters to see if they can get people on this bandwagon? I just don't like it, being a grumpy old man, I suppose.

Understandable.

...the fear thing, not the grumpy old man thing.

Fair enough... but do you think that adding another needless prop (like "fortune cards" or "plot twist cards" or such nonsense) is helping make DMs better DMs, or is it hindering their growth by allowing them to get by on cheap gimmicks instead of expanding their skill set? I wonder sometimes...

No, I don't think they're needed, but I don't know that they're the harbinger of my doom or something like that.

As for rules-lawyers, they just need to be dealt with firmly - "No, Johnny, you can't look up that rule right now; we're in the middle of combat. Please write down your concern and we'll talk about it AFTER the game but for now my ruling stands."

That can be difficult sometimes when your rules-lawyers are actual lawyers.

Sure, but there are other things you can do. Maybe the player misses, but maybe you just "pretend" to roll for the orcs that next round, deciding that they're going to miss as well. Maybe you halve the hit points the orcs are supposed to have. Maybe you decide that one of the orcs has a heart condition and drops dead from the exhaustion in battle, and make a fun mystery out of it for the players:

"You swing and miss the orc badly but you notice something strange - the pig faced creature's mouth twists into a grimace and he clutches his chest just as if you HAD struck him a fatal blow. You're not sure what is happening, but the foul creature falls to the ground and looks at you almost pleadingly, the hate leaving its eyes as it is replaced by something that is clearly a mixture of dread and fear."

Soooo many plot devices that could happen here. The players could wonder if they are being helped by a mysterious, unseen mage. The players could capture the orc and offer it healing magic, figuring out it is suffering from some kind of malady and its tribe would never accept him back because of his "weakness" - so they gain an unlikely ally, etc., etc. This, my friend, is storytelling at its finest - taking a perceived bad thing (players can't roll to hit your monsters and are getting slaughtered) and turning it into a good thing. Maybe ALL the orcs are sick, if the players are REALLY overmatched - and it turns into an adventure hook leading the players to discover an evil druid and a dangerous, poisoned spring of water nearby... maybe...

See? Not so much Deus Ex mode as it is simply adapting and keeping it fun on the fly.

I will admit, I'm not that good; one day maybe, but not atm. Honestly it would never occur to me to give an orc a heart condition, although it is really funny now that I think about it.

in the halcyon days of my youth

I award you ten internets.

I purchased an Insider Account and canceled it about a week into it and made them give me a refund. I specifically purchased it because a friend told me that there was an online character builder, and when I actually got to use it, it was a non-functioning piece of garbage that crashed before I could finish a character. I was not happy and I refuse to pay for it until they make it functional.

Really? I've never had a problem with mine. That would indeed suck and I wouldn't pay for it either. It works great for both my wife and I, though, barring the errata that exists up on the site and a few "known issues" that everyone has to deal with. I like it better than any other chargen system, though - certainly it's my favorite thing about 4th edition.

I play cleric mostly and I was trying to build a cleric and certain links in the builder would just crash the damn thing to a white screen and I'd have to reload and the link stayed dead. I spoke with Wizards tech support (which they FORCE you to do through email if you have a problem with the character builder) and they basically told me they'd pass it on to the development team. Yeah.

I mean, conceptually, it's a cool idea, but I can't use it, and they can't offer me a solution, so I'm not going to pay for it. And honestly, it's not that I'm unwilling to pay for it, but I want it to function for me, or hell, I at least want to talk to a living breathing thrall about my technical issues when I have them.

A M:tG D&D world would be fine as LONG AS WE WEREN'T FORCED TO USE OR BUY CARDS.

Oh of course. I just have been a big fan of of some of the Magic Story arcs. I think Invasion and Ravnica settings would both make great DnD settings.

People do treat gaming as a subset of religion and politics at times, don't they?

Yknow what's frightening is when I see myself as a child in some posts, it's really scary when you wanna criticize someone and go "Gods, I used to be just like him!"

 

[Elamdri]

Ugh. I see exactly where WoTC is going with this now:

http://www.wizards.com/WPN/Sales/Article.aspx?x=fortune_cards_shadows

For some Wizards Play Network programs aimed at experienced players, Fortune Card purchase will be a requirement to participate, but our broadly-appealing programs like D&D Encounters will feature their use without such a requirement. Once you start using them, you?ll see that they actually help to focus player actions and provide interesting tactical opportunities that you may not have considered previously.
-WoTC Website

And I think this might be why people aren't bashing Paizo as badly as WoTC - WoTC is admitting that they are trying to make these things... uh, less than optional.

And I don't want a collectible card trading game with "uncommon" "common" and "rare" cards infiltrating my D&D game; if I wanted to play M:tG I'd play M:tG. I *hate* M:tG for the record. Nothing against those who like it; just not my cup of tea.

It's like this - I like tea, green tea in particular. Not so much into Starbucks coffee. If my tea merchant started selling coffee grounds along with tea; fine. If my tea merchant started forcing me to ingest coffee by putting grounds IN my expensive matcha tea I'd be one ticked off gnome.

That I will admit is bad.

And MtG is evil. Evil, Evil Evil Evil EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL.

Especially Type 2

 

[Paksenarrion]

Fortune Cards: D&D's Regenerating Health Bar.

 

[The Gnome King]

That I will admit is bad.

And MtG is evil. Evil, Evil Evil Evil EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL.

Especially Type 2

I think I'm biased against any system that I see as P2W (pay to win) as opposed as it being purely skill or intellect based. If you beat me at chess it could be because you're just better than I am at chess. If you beat me at M:tG it could be simply that you have more cash to spend on trading cards building an uber deck. It's everything I hate about the class system rolled up into a game.

(And the whole rare/uncommon/common thing makes it worse - hey, let's print out this cheap-ass cardboard thing but make SOME of them ULTRA rare - and start doing TOURNAMENTS based around this game...) *facepalm*

Maybe I'm a little biased against the game since one of the biggest players I know of it is in his 30's, lives at home with mom and dad, and hasn't ever held down a real job for more than a few months at a time in his life yet he constantly rails about how "poor people are lazy" etc etc... while he tries to get a "professional career" based off playing M:tG off the ground.

Again, *facepalm* ...