Goodman Games

Hi everyone,

It's a new year with some new ideas! I've been thinking over a new approach with the DCC line and wanted to get some feedback. Think for a moment about the RPG market over the last few years:

2001-2004: 80%+ of RPG'ers were playing 3E.
2004-2005: Some gamers fell off between 3E and 3.5, but still 75% playing 3.5.
2005-2007: D20 variants multiply. Mutants & Masterminds, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, Castles & Crusades, Conan, others. Most of the market is playing some version of 3E, but it's no longer all D&D. Various d20 publishers begin to release their own stand-alone RPG's (e.g., Runequest).
2008: Most, but not all, of the RPG market converts to 4E. Market is now split between 4E and many varieties of 3E holdouts. Other systems proliferate, including Hackmaster Basic and the 1E retro-clones. "Old-school" goes mainstream. Goodman Games remains the only "d20 company" still primarily supporting WotC D&D.
2009: Pathfinder releases. Fantasy RPG market is now split between 4E and Pathfinder, with another big chunk split to the other stand-alone RPG's (Castles & Crusades, Runequest, Fantasycraft, upcoming Dragon Age, etc.), and another chunk shopping online in the retro-clone market (which I personally have a fondness for).
2010: What's a module publisher to do?

My primary love remains adventures, but the market is so fragmented that the customers who played DCC modules in 2004 are now playing 6 different systems.

Here's something I've been thinking about. What if a DCC were written in "native 4E" but there were downloads to support other systems? Or...what if the DCC had generic stats ("Orc, 6 hp, axe, chainmail")...and ALL detailed stats were available as a download? So if you play 4E you download the 4E stats PDF...if you play Pathfinder you download the Pathfinder stats PDF...etc.

Tell me what you think. There are certain economics required in publishing modules, but as long as those economics are met by satisfying one or two larger systems, it may be possible to support more than one system.

And as a final side note, tell me what you think of Dungeon Alphabet. This is the book I spent a year working on as a side project, just to stay in touch with my inner grognard. If there's still a market for old-school imagery -- as evidenced by sales on Dungeon Alphabet -- this remains another option for the DCC line or other projects.

Thanks,
Joseph

This would be great! Kind of like the old Judges Guild Universal System.

I'm very much not interested in modules that default to 4E, even if there is a conversion document. I know that sounds awful, and I apologize, but your own 3E products are competing with 4E, along with all the other 3E modules out there. And frankly, with so much good 3E stuff, there isn't a reason for me to make sacrifices.

I would be OK with modules that default to Pathfinder. I don't play Pathfinder, but it's close enough to 3.5 edition that I would just run it as-is. If there were a conversion document to 3.5, I'd take it.

Having said that, I have to admit that the best thing you could probably hope for is to hear not what a customer maybe pledges to do but what they actually do. And that brings me to my optimum choice. I know that in recent years I have already purchased many systemless modules (my first was Freeport). I am happy to buy something that references "orcs" and nothing more, and either leaves it to me to stat the monsters, or provides a downloadable supplement for my system.

To a small degree, systemless is even better, in the sense that I can concentrate on the plot & events, without fretting about stat blocks and trying to verify that the module author knew how to apply the rules properly.

Anyway, my kids want to watch the new Star Trek, so I'll post more later.

EDIT: OK, done with Star Trek. It's still as good as I remember it from the theater.

So the only other thing to add is -- if you do decide to provide conversion documents -- please try to make money from the module itself rather than the conversion document. I say this because once the conversions themselves start to have financial importance, it's not a far leap to protecting that investment by locking out anyone who stats up a monster. You have good forums, and for example in the DCC forum there are many customers brainstorming how to improve modules or add interesting bits. So it would be a shame to stifle someone who produces a conversion for some obscure system, because you expected that you might produce one, someday.

Good luck. Have fun.

Do it, Joe, and follow the thread over on ENWorld about this as well.

Cross-posted from EN World

Having GMed homebrew RPGs a lot, I am quite adept at converting. I think that an adventure that includes stats for several different games is doomed to failure, simply because it becomes such a bad read. Game books need to be literature as well as good games, or they will never catch the attention of the potential DM.

That said, supplementary download material with conversions (or even just conversion guides) for different settings and/or systems are great. Some kind of bare-bones 3.5 SRD version would probably be best, as that could be made to fit most 3.5 variants.

If I wrote a 3.5 SRD conversion of a 4E adventure, I don't think I'd convert critters and NPCs using 3.5 rules. Instead, I'd translate the 4E mechanics into 3E stats, but keep the 4E format of each creature just having a few iconic abilities. In other words, no long list of spell-like abilities, instead a few powers specific to that critter. This creature format was the best invention of 4E. But I am far from sure that most 3.5 players agree with me on this.

Not interested in 4E books at all. Im also a dead tree version collector.

If you were to print 3.5 or Pathfinder, Id be totally on board. I miss the Goodman stuff.

In general, I haven't bought a lot of DCC's - I'm more of an adventure path person for 3.5/4E - but I did get Castle Whiterock back in the DCC era for 3.5. (It was brilliant). Our main game is currently 4E.

However, I have bought some recent old-school compatible modules and I can say that putting in no stat blocks and declaring something is compatible with OE, 1E, Classic, and the clones works perfectly fine. I don't think it's hard to run those games 'out of the monster manual'.

For 4E, I feel that something needs to be designed for 4E first and foremost, because of the need for tactical encounters, terrain, hazards, and balanced monster roles. I don't care if the 4E monster stats are in the module; in fact, something like an 'encounter group listing' from the monster manuals works fine for identifying the monsters (if possible to do this legally...)

Here's my issue with designing something for 4E and then trying to make it compatible with older games... in an old school adventure, there could be a lot more fights, and XP was typically generated off of gold pieces. In 4E, there are fewer fights, each one is a lot more meaningful, and the XP is generated off of the encounter itself. These two problems (and competing goals) don't seem reconcilable. Maybe it would be easier designing for 4E and 3.5+ at the same time.

As for Dungeon Alphabet: I intend to get it later this month; I got Michael's Stonehell and really enjoy the resurgence of old school games. While my adult group is firmly in 4E-land, our kids are hitting 8-9 years old and ready to start with the retro-games. Other recent goodman purchases have been Points of Light, Level Up and Blackdirge's denizens. I expect to also get the 'Here to There' because shortish delve-type set-ups work very well for 4E.

I think that a module designed for 4e has different requirements (and probably a different approach) from modules designed for TSR editions, or even 3.x. Consequently, a module that was originally designed for 4e and then converted has little appeal, for me, especially since there are an increasing number of options for modules that are designed for my preferred system (or one that is highly compatible), right from the start.

I'm more interested in modules that were designed for the older systems (especially 1e and OD&D, in my case) and their approach, and in products like Points of Light and the creature generator.

As a current 4e DM and player I have been happy with the Goodman Games products I have purchased up until now. I would not like to see Goodman Games move away from 4e although it wouldn't bother me to buy a system neutral adventure if I knew I could get a 4e supplement from your website. Personally as a DM who is in college with a job and a family I don't have time to spend on creating adventures which is why I was so glad that Goodman Games offered such a good alternative to the official 4e stuff and Forgotten Realms. I really have grown to dislike FR as a campaign world. Aereth is such an interesting place and I only wish I had discovered it earlier in 3/3.5.

To be honest I would be all for any change that enabled you to publish DCC's regularly. It has been over 4 months since DCC 63. I don't see how going system neutral would help your publishing schedule but if it does then I would be happy.

I have said this before on these boards but, I really like Goodman Games and especially Aereth I only hope that you all continue the great work that has been done so far. I have been sad by the lack of adventures for the paragon tier but Blackdirge's sunday night releases have helped keep me occuppied.

This has been a bit rambling but I keep getting distracted by Azagar's Book of Rituals which I just got today. I guess I just want to say that I would be in support of Goodman Games if you all started doing system neutral adventures with booklets for 4e and whatever other game systems as supplements.

It is a tough call. This is how I look at it; you have three major systems 4e/3e/retro. Modules require work to convert between the three different categories.

For retro clones, adventures modules are fairly easy to convert between the different systems as long as you don't get too elaborate with your stat blocks. What changes from using Swords & Wizardry vs OSRIC vs Castles & Crusades is the level of the character that can tackle the bag of NPCs and monsters that makes up the module.

For 4e Adventures and supplements I feel that the 4e market suffers from the NOT MADE BY WIZARDS syndrome. If it is not from WOTC then a majority of the fanbase won't give it a second look. Not sure how much of a NOT MADE BY PAIZO attitude afflicts Pathfinder.

For 4e the best course of action I feel a publisher can take to tackle the not by Wizards syndrome is to make their own PHB but NOT as an expansion to the existing PHBs. Instead made a new bag of classes, powers, and monster to emulate a fantasy subgenre that 4e doesn't do well. 4e fantasy is very heroic and high powered. The exception based rules system could, with a lot of work, be turned into a system that does a low gritty fantasy, lovecraftian horror fantasy, urban fantasy, planetary romance, etc ,etc.

Because it uses all the keywords, frameworks, and core rules of 4e is can work with the normal stuff but rather than trying to integrate and work along side Wizard you are establishing a distinct identity and more importantly something that Wizards doesn't offer.

I feel that the retro clone market is growing but it not at a point that it can support big budget projects. Although it may come sooner than later. The key element to the retro games is that a game doesn't age, it plays as well (or poorly) as the day it's was first written. It may be presented better as many are finding out with OSRIC vs the original AD&D books.

With the retro-clone moving out of the "let's make rulebooks" phase people are trying to take the various rulesets into new directions. For example is the interest in science fantasy and planetary romances like John Carter of Mars. There are an opportunity for a publisher tooffer something distinct in addition to catering to the fantasy genre. Because of the simplicity of many retro-clone rulesets that it's appeal will continue to grow.

With Pathfinder, 3x series of rules has a large group of players that know the rules and many that still play today. Unlike the retro-clones Pathfinder doesn't have to grow it's market from scratch. One could develop distinct sub-genres for Pathfinder that Paizo is not doing in addition to catering to the core fantasy market.

If the numbers support it, I would go with Pathfinder for primary support with a secondary effort on the retro-clone. I would do this because of the NOT MADE BY WIZARDS syndrome for 4e. If growth in the retro-clone market warrants it then switch to supporting retro-clone as your primary effort as I feel the rules will be more enduring in their appeal than 3e or 4e. Although 3e will be a close call.

Do 4e if you feel you have something distinct from wizards like say a fantasy version of the Lovecraft stuff you been doing.

As for which retro-clone to support I recommend Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and OSRIC as the stated purpose of those this to stay as close to the originals as legally possible. L&L and OSRIC are probably the best for adventure writing as S&W is more a framework on which someone can build their own D&D on. But the difference are inches not miles so take your pick.

As for Hackmaster Basic it is a good system but they have to grow their market and I don't have enough info to really say how good that choice would be.

As for the other retro-clones, the differences are still inches so if you have another favorite go for it.

The Hackmaster modules have battle sheets at the end their modules listing all the stats. I always preferred that to the inline format.

Crossposted to the Paizo boards.

I abandoned Goodman Games when you jumped on 4e. Which was pretty hard and sad for me - I have almost everything you had put out including some of the original art works. I'm not a collector, I just aligned with your style.

Without trying to start a stupid version war - this is just my philosophy - I won't buy your 4e products even with a Pathfinder download conversion. I will not use my money to encourage that edition's sales. Why not create a Pathfinder module with 4e downloads? Or a system neutral module with system specific downloads?

Love Dungeon Alphabet and your C&C and CoC stuff!

If I ever find some people to play with again, I'll be playing 4e...but only if there are Goodman products to support it. I have already bought more Goodman 4e products than I did 3.5 products.

I am not against supporting multiple systems in theory, but there are the aforementioned balancing issues between systems. I don't think an adventure that just had stats converted from one system to another would work that well? But I could be wrong.

I would not care for systems neutral adventures, even if downloads were available. I like having my stat blocks right there in the text, partially for convenience and partially for some different formatting to break up paragraphs of text.

Crosspost over at rpg.net.

I'd really be in favor of anything that helps bring more support to the Pathfinder RPG honestly.

This is only my like second post on your forums but I know there is very little enthusiasm or support for 4th edition for what I'm seeing in the shops around Minnesota, but the Pathfinder books are doing good business even at $50 a pop and people are getting excited about the d20 system again.

I'd say generic might work better, focus more on the story and the goings on of PCs and NPCs and then offering suggestions for monsters (the orc with axe, chainmail) or downloads to get more specifics would be very interesting to see, but I don't know if that'd be an easier task for you to do. Diversification isn't a bad thing most of the time...

I think this is a great idea!

I still like my living campaign idea...

Though I'm 4e mostly now so that's what I'd want. But systemless with 4e stat pdf's would be rather cool as well.

I haven't bought any Goodman Games products since the End of Edition sale. Original content for the Pathfinder RPG would change that.

Joe-

Personally, I would like to see both 4e adventures and Pathfinder adventures. I run multiple groups and having both to choose from would be a benefit.

Personally, I think a 4e / generic format is the way to go. Many posters upthread have already shown that 4e would be difficult to do in a generic system, as there are many assumptions needed for combat and experience allocation. I have used older DCC (pre-4e) in other systems with very little problems in conversion, so it should be a snap, as long as you have a somewhat capable GM (that's about as high as I'd rate myself) reading your module.

Is there a way this can be tested out in Level Up? It's been a long time since I've seen a new issue, and checked your store to make sure I was current with issue #2.

Diversification of the product line is always a good idea; however, I am not certain that adhering to a 4E base design with downloadable stats for previous versions would necessarily work as an all around solution for the majority of the potential customer base. In part due to the potential amount of tweaking necessary for adding in fiddly bits of related material to the overall story line and plots as related to an individual DM's campaign. The basic premise of (x)D&D has evolved over the years to such a degree based on the target demographics that perhaps it would almost be best to have two entirely separate product lines. Where the delineation between these would be, I am not certain nor am I certain the economics of the situation would warrant two different product lines. Given the current state of the economy, I know my discretionary budget is not quite what it used to be and there are more than likely others with similar situations.

Speaking from recent observations, I have seen an uptick in 4E related material in the three Half Price Books in my area including DCCs while 3.5E and older material seems to be selling quite well. For me, this has worked out nicely since I have been wanting to obtain better copies of some well worn 2E/2.5E books along with additional copies of some old modules that can be easily used with OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord. Also having recently come across one of the "unofficial" White Dwarf DVDs, I think I will have enough to keep me busy for some time to come ...

It's not that I wouldn't like to purchase more DCCs right now, but I am just not seeing the same level of flavor that inspired me like before. This from someone that has a nearly complete run of DCC #1 - #50.

Steve

So, any comments? Responses have been all over the place over here, EN Worlds, rpg.net, and Paizo. Inquiring minds (and pocket books!) want to know!

I didn't quite expect so many responses. I was "just saying." Next time maybe I'll ask if I should publish my modules in Hebrew or Arabic -- might as well try to bring peace to the Middle East while I discuss Pathfinder and 4E in the same breath...

Regarding what makes a good module, the debate "out there" is the same debate we've had many times "in here." Is it the story, characters, and plot, which are easily adapted to any system? Or is it the tactics, statistics, and rules elements, which are more specific to a system? I lean more toward the former, some other folks are more toward the latter.

It seems from the various posts that the same perspectives exist more broadly. Frankly, this makes me more hesitant to try multi-system support within the same product line. For every customer who appreciates the adaptability, someone else will interpret it as a dilution of the native ruleset.

I'm also not interested in being the lightning rod for the edition wars. Apparently if I support Pathfinder it means 4E sales are terrible, whereas my ongoing support for Chaosium's BRP means 4E sales are okay? I run Goodman Games for fun, not profit, and when people post vitriolic messages because I do (or don't) support 4E (or Pathfinder), I have to ask myself, "Do I really want to be involved in this?" I sincerely wish the nature of the debate were much more civil.

I did like the suggestion of a DCC RPG. Great minds think alike.

For me its both. I love the story/characters/plot overall but I need them using my native ruleset and stats because I dont have the time for the manual conversions.


*** Btw, if you ever do a DCC RPG with a rules-light formula (basically without the NEED for miniatures), Id be on board for that too. Provided module support was as good as it was for 3E/3.5.
The heavy focus on minis, stopping the game to draw out a map is the number one slowdown in my games. I suspect alot of folks have similar experiences.

You could do it as a patronage project like this guy.