Or he could simply set up an independant company to put out 4E D&D modules. So you have 'Goodman Games 4E' as an independant entity, or something completely unassociated... 'Twisted Pickle Publishing' perhaps. No reason why he could not own and run both. No conflict or interest either. Probably cost him a few hundred dollars in paperwork and he's good to go. End of problem.

mbassoc2003 wrote:Or he could simply set up an independant company to put out 4E D&D modules. So you have 'Goodman Games 4E' as an independant entity, or something completely unassociated... 'Twisted Pickle Publishing' perhaps. No reason why he could not own and run both. No conflict or interest either. Probably cost him a few hundred dollars in paperwork and he's good to go. End of problem.

From what I understand (again my limited knowledge available from what I read online like everyone else) Wotc wouldn't allow such shenanigans, and they would be in a position to enforce this through withholding of licensing. Since they are the final arbiters of who does and doesn't get to publish 4E products, they could decide that a company doing this, while perfectly legal and following all the rules (wink wink), is diluting the market for 4E and thus gets their license pulled.  

Again, from what is being said, I think Wotc wants far more market control than they had under the OGL.   Basically you either play under their rules, or you don't get to play in their sandbox.  From what I've seen so far out of Goodman, I doubt they have much interest in continuing their DCC old style line, and will whole heartedly switch over to 4E. I would bet dollars to doughnuts you never see them publish anything 3/3.5 specific ever again.  Remember this is the same company that one year grudgingly printed 70 copies of a special release 1st edition module thinking they would be stuck with dozens at the end of the 2006 convention; I don't think people who buy the items for the nostalgia value alone really matter to them in the scheme of things.

From what I can read between the lines in the podcast, I think the only thing Joe is really trying to push is the stipulation that all product with the D&D logo has to be GONE by a certain date.  Goodman probably wants to modify that condition by either pushing the date farther back (say, a year instead of six months), or work out a specific agreement where they can still dump backstock after the cut off date.  Otherwise I think they are going to go full guns into 4E.

I have no doubt that if companies can't update old product to the new rules, the online community will have conversions posted so as to make anything available to the current D&D version.

ShaneG.

I don't think that's the item of interest.  Of course there will be conversions. To me (looking at the items as possible collectibles) would Goodman reissue say DCC#49 with the same cover except now converted to 4E, and with a blurb on said cover saying (SECOND PRINT NOW COMPATIBLE WITH 4TH EDITION!). I'll go out ona  limb and say no.  I think for all intents and purposes the "old style" DCC line is dead, as evidenced by the "new look" covers posted on the web site.  In truth, this is just a good marketing strategy for Goodman. What modules of Goodman were "classic" enough to convert to 4E when you can just have someone write another?  I say they get rid of all their old stock with a massive sale, and look ahead, with perhaps ocassional "nostalgia themed" modules for conventions and such.

But I could be completely wrong.  That's just the vibe I'm getting now.  Anyway you look at it, it's a good time to complete your pre-4E Goodman games collection with the sales that will soon be coming.  I would especially look at getting the later releases that might have smaller print runs than a lot of the earlier printings.

Mike B.

Well I guess we have about a month till we see what will come about.

So was this the trend with 2nd edition, when 3rd was announced, did certain settings become more valuable?

ShaneG.

deimos3428 wrote:Well, yeah.  It happened in 1990, it happened in 2000, and it's happening now.

The Once A Decade insanity!!!!

Mike B.

My comments about Goodman have little to do with 4th edition and a lot to do with bad artwork.

Specifically...the bad artwork that we older gamers consider "classic."

As 3rd edition showed..."classic" artwork on the cover tended to indicate that the content would likely be at least of useable quality.

By comparison, the more slick and professional the cover artwork, the more ify the contents inside the cover.

In short, the new covers look stupid.  Stupid.

What's inside might still be good...but the covers do not bode well.

mbassoc2003 wrote:Or he could simply set up an independant company to put out 4E D&D modules. So you have 'Goodman Games 4E' as an independant entity, or something completely unassociated... 'Twisted Pickle Publishing' perhaps. No reason why he could not own and run both. No conflict or interest either. Probably cost him a few hundred dollars in paperwork and he's good to go. End of problem.

ummnnnnn   yup..........
Hire a coporate lawyer to do the legal mumbo jumbo paperwork and to check the legalities with the wicked witches lawyers at WotCo and go fer it........

FormCritic wrote:The new covers...and three modules in a row by the same author intended for first level characters...(?)...they are not classic.

The new covers indicate a change of heart by Goodman.  There is no other way to interpret it.    They indicate a change of market.

If Step One is to dump the established market...then...mission accomplished...?  

Goodman has traditionally been a smart company.  I can only conclude they are reacting to something I cannot see.

Paizo is looking more and more like the company most likely to emerge as the new leader of the RPG genre...with the Pathfinder RPG as the lead game.

I really do hope WOTC gets its game together.  They seem to be making decisions out of fear...reacting to the market rather than trying to lead it...and that is not good.

Goodman and the rest were presented with the "Either/Or" dilemma.  Goodman Games has just decided that it's way lies with 4E, not making old school grognards happy with retro covers and nostalgic dungeon crawls. They basically have a fork in the road, and they've chosen one direction. Whether it leads to success or failure for them waits to be seen.

And honestly, Goodman games has done a lot right, but I sometimes get the impression they rather stumbled on their present course instead of careful planning, and hit the motherlode with the nostalgia crowd. I have the feeling they have never really embraced the entire "old school" philosophy whole heartedly, and sometimes appear confused that the entire line was so successful. Remember the Gencon 2006 fiasco where they thought printing 70 copies of a 1st edtiion revamp of one of their modules was going to lead to them taking dozens back home after the convention???  Perhaps they settled on making simplistic type dungeons, and using classic old style illustrators like Otus, Roslof and Dee, because they were CHEAP, and didn't cost much to publish? Wasn't at one time Otus getting like $200 a module cover???  Anyone looking inside a DCC module has noticed the way, way below subpar interior artwork by no names. Perhaps the entire DCCC line was a fluke that somehow flourished, and Goodman and company figure 4E is a chance to "retire" that style and do it up "right" like a "real" game company would.

I'm entirely speculating here so I may be way, way off. However, the entire LOOK of the new Goodman modules is such a shock, and so off what they have done previously, I'm grasping for any explanation that might make sense.....

Mike B.

Badmike wrote:At this point I'm going to support them just to spite WOTC and their Machiavellian machinations....
Mike B.

Mike makes more marvelous musings 'midst misadventuring mistakes. My my!  

Hi guys,

I don't post a lot here, as you regulars can attest, but I do kind of peek my nose in to see what the vibe is from time to time.  
I think you know that I am a straight shooter with my posts and that I don't spin information to make it more favorable.  

Badmike wrote:<<snip>>
And honestly, Goodman games has done a lot right...I have the feeling they have never really embraced the entire "old school" philosophy whole heartedly...

<<separations added for emphasis>>

Remember the Gencon 2006 fiasco where they thought printing 70 copies of a 1st edtiion revamp of one of their modules was going to lead to them taking dozens back home after the convention???  


Perhaps they settled on making simplistic type dungeons, and using classic old style illustrators like Otus, Roslof and Dee, because they were CHEAP, and didn't cost much to publish? Wasn't at one time Otus getting like $200 a module cover???  Anyone looking inside a DCC module has noticed the way, way below subpar interior artwork by no names.

<<snip>>

I'm entirely speculating here so I may be way, way off. However, the entire LOOK of the new Goodman modules is such a shock, and so off what they have done previously, I'm grasping for any explanation that might make sense.....

Mike B.

I also think that Goodman Games has done a lot of things right, even given the context of this forum.  But their business, their DCC product line, has always been about putting out adventures that are going to get played, first and foremost.  The collecting of the DCC's happened because there was some attraction to the product, the print runs were fairly small, the prices were affordable, whatever the reason.  But my point is that Goodman Games' core business was producing DCC's for gamers that wanted to play them, not just collect them.  

I also think that their 'embracing the entire "old school" philosophy whole heartedly' was less than full and complete.  There were certainly examples in the DCC line that were more old school in flavor and philosophy than others, but when you opened them up, they were often populated with monsters and NPC combos that smacked of new school design sensibilities.  And the focus on encounter level and proper balance for the 3.5 gaming crowd is decidedly not old school in design philosophy.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not turning my back on Goodman Games or the DCC line.  Ha - not hardly!  But I do think a lot more could have been done as the DCC product line rolled out over the last 3 or 4 years to have more fully embraced the entire "old school" philosophy.  But, who knows if the product line would have been as successful as it was had that been done.  

****
Hasen't the bad 2006 Gen Con experience with the very limited print run of the 1E Iron Crypt of the Heretics been exercised with the second printing of that very same 1E conversion adventure and the very well done Saga of the Witch Queen that was released at Gen Con 2007?  

I know that my opinion may be viewed as biased, since I was involved in the release of both of those DCC conversions.  Heck, I am biased.  
But really, can't the Iron Crypt hatchet be burried?  

****
I'm pretty sure that Erol Otis isn't getting $200 for cover illos in this day and age.     Not sure about the others, though.  

I truly think that the price point and the underlying cost factors were a  intentional design decision made by Goodman Games.  Not because they were too cheap to do something different, but because the goal was to publish more modular, cost-effective adventures than WotC was turning out in the 3.0 and then 3.5 eras.  Of course, that is purely my speculation - I don't have any inside skinny on what Joesph decides.  

****

Yeah, I agree with you that the look of the new DCCs is decidedly different than the DCCs released to date.  I'm not too crazy about it myself.  But to borrow a quote from a favorite old movie:

"Now now Mr. Scott, young minds, fresh ideas" (or some such)
-- James T Kirk

Funny thing is though, no one knows what new game stuff will be selling a year from now and what won't be selling.  For companies like Goodman Games, it's a really big guessing game at this point.