Badmike wrote:My verdict: DISASTER.
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.
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.
Kingofpain89 wrote:I have the same feeling Mike. Goodman games is one of only a few companies that I looked forward to seeing new products from. Now I dont really think there is anything to look forward to anymore. I am not surprised that they are going with 4E though. Even with all of the complaining by gamers about 4E, the majority of gamers that played 3E will still convert to the new edition so that is where the money will be. I dont think they will be as successful as they were with 3rd edition but they will most likely survive.Wizards of the Coast however may not. What kind of message does that send to the gaming community that your company may not be attending the largest gaming convention? That would be like Marvel Comics saying that they wont have a mega-booth at the San Diego Comicon. It just doesnt make any sense at all. If the rumor is true, there is no telling what consequences they could be facing. Hasbro might see WotC as a declining part of their conglomerate. They might end up selling Wizards to another company, dissolve it entirely, sell the D&D license to someone else. Scary possibilities....but if any of them ever do happen it might be a good thing in the long run for D&D.
Badmike wrote:Has the entire industry gone bonkers? Good Lord.
deimos3428 wrote:Well, yeah. It happened in 1990, it happened in 2000, and it's happening now.
Plaag wrote: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.
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.
FormCritic wrote: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.
Badmike wrote:At this point I'm going to support them just to spite WOTC and their Machiavellian machinations....Mike B.
benjoshua wrote:Mike makes more marvelous musings 'midst misadventuring mistakes. My my!
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.
tacojohn4547 wrote: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. Always enjoy the insight of your posts, John!!!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 agree. Certainly people like myself are a very, very niche part of their customer base, people who basically buy and collect the product for it's old school look and tone.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.I agree. But I noticed that in contrast to a lot of 3E stuff on the market, Goodman games items were much easier to convert to a old school format (1st or 2nd ed) than, say, a Necromancer product. Mostly because their adventures were usually pretty basica and linear and didn't go in for a lot of bells and whistles. 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. I honestly think it would have been MORE successful. You can't convince me that small side printings of, say, DCC's #1-#8 in 1st edition format wouldn't have completely sold out. Yes, completely sold out. I don't think we are talking full scale changeover, just a wink and a nod to the old school gamer that is still out there and has PLENTY of money in their "old age" to indulge themselves. Goodman games was in a unique position in the 3E market to benefit, with their use of Otus, Dee and Roslof as artists, and their basic philosophy, and I feel they may look into the past and realize they did drop the ball on inticing this segment of gaming to spend more money on their product.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 don't have any negatives with that, since Goodman did the right thing (by printing copies of the item later). But I do use that entire experience as an example of how Goodman simply had no clue what kind of market there was out there and no idea how to reach it, despite having all the pieces in place to do so. And I'm biased also But my bias is that I want to see more specific old school items out there, and I think Goodman was in a prime position to do so, and even profit from it.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 know Otus wasn't getting much more than that when he started, because it was discussed on an earlier thread. $400? $500? Whatever the amount I remember thinking it was awfully puny, since I had Roslof do a drawing for me for about the same amount. The point was that Goodman wasn't just using old school artists because guys like me love the nostalgia, he was doing it because the old guys were CHEAP.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. I think you are right. And I think it really worked for them.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 KirkFunny 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.
tacojohn4547 wrote: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.
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 KirkFunny 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.