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.
Badmike wrote:Quote: 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 was offered $200 to do the cover of The Temple of the Frog for Zeitgeist Games in 2006.
FormCritic wrote:...and three modules in a row by the same author intended for first level characters...(?)...they are not classic.
goatboy wrote:I hope Erol got at least $500 for his Goodman covers. He seemed in a pretty good mood last Gen Con, so I can only assume it is worth his while.
goatboy wrote:I could be mistaken, but I believe that 2 of the modules are by Harley Stroh, the same author that wrote 2 of Goodman's AD&D modules. So, by my interpretation, odds are in favor of the content being in line with oldschool design sensibilities, even if the covers are not.
Badmike wrote:Every one of the DCC's is 50% off...including the massive Castle Whiterock!
Badmike wrote:Goodman Games are cleaning out their 3.5 stock...looks like the switch to 4E is official. Every one of the DCC's is 50% off...including the massive Castle Whiterock!http://www.goodman-games.com/store.htmlTime to put the finishing touches on that collection, guys....Mike B.
smarmy1 wrote:Definitely a sweet deal!!!! 50% off plus free shipping (in the US). Thanks again, Mike.Collection complete except for the ever elusive DCC 3.5, The Haunted Lighthouse. Does anyone want to part with their copy? ... Anyone? ... Anyone?Sigh...
