# Goodman Games solicits input



## Filcher (Jan 4, 2010)

Joseph Goodman soliciting input on the DCC line:



> 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:
> 
> ...



Goodman Games • View topic - Supporting multiple systems within the DCC's


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 4, 2010)

I'd be down with free downloads of stat conversions for 4e mods converted to 3.5e, Pathfinder and OSRIC. 

If it's too cost prohibitive to do "in house", Goodman Games could probably solicit volunteers (rewarded with free product perhaps) from the community to do the stat conversions for them. Then they would just have to approve, possibly even edit, the conversions and host them.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 4, 2010)

The adventures would definitely need to be "native 4e." The map scale, and movement requirements are greater, in my opinion, than previous editions. The 10 ft by 10 ft room died was already on its last leg, but it died with 4e.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2010)

Historically, has there ever been any successful module product lines which were stated for multiple rpg rulesets or had generic stats (ie. "Orc, 6 hp, axe, chainmail")?

For lower level modules (ie. less than level 6 or 7 for 4E), doing it with generic stats could possibly work.  (An appendix could refer to pages in the appropriate monster manuals of different systems).  I'm not sure if this can be easily pulled off at higher levels (ie. over level 10 or 11 in 4E).


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 4, 2010)

I like the idea of multi-rule adventures.

FYI on me: Fan of Goodman.  Haven't bought any Goodman stuff in a year.  My gaming spending (reduced) mostly goes to old stuff and Paizo.  I'm playing 3.5e.


----------



## Vascant (Jan 4, 2010)

4e isn't native for me, so I would need to see a sample before I start spending money on such a thing.  Paizo has done a great job of giving me some 3e love on a consistent basis.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 4, 2010)

haakon1 said:


> I like the idea of multi-rule adventures.
> 
> FYI on me: Fan of Goodman.  Haven't bought any Goodman stuff in a year.  My gaming spending (reduced) mostly goes to old stuff and Paizo.  I'm playing 3.5e.




Same here concerning Goodman, though not playing 3e or any derivatives of. That does mean it more likely for me to purchase something with totally generic stats. Game styles for mid to high level 3e or 4e seem too different to make a great adventure for either system IMHO .

EDIT: To make it clear I don't play either 3e or 4e.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 4, 2010)

Hm, given the relatively recent post Joe made in which he strongly proclaimed that 4E was doing great, I'm rather surprised (albeit pleasantly) to hear that he's considering branching out in terms of adventures for other systems.

That said, I agree with the posters who are doubtful that a 4E adventure can be easily converted to 3.5/Pathfinder. It's not just a question of swapping out the mechanics - the two systems are dissimilar enough that it seems likely that, for higher-level adventures, the same material wouldn't convert well between editions.

I also don't think that system-less adventures are the way to go either. As someone who plays 3.5/Pathfinder, a system-less adventure with downloadable stats for my edition of choice isn't much better for me than the "native 4E" option; it's almost certainly more likely to alienate his existing 4E customers quite a bit, however.

Mostly, while I'm happy with the thought of Goodman Games once again producing materials for the system I like, the idea of needing to carry around both the adventure and a printed download of converted stats sounds like enough of a hassle (page flipping, for example) to turn me off to the idea. Unless he can find a way to make it very slick, I don't think I'll be enticed by anything less than an adventure written in "native 3.5/Pathfinder."


----------



## Mark (Jan 4, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Hm, given the relatively recent post Joe made (. . .)





Will you be translating this one, too?


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Hm, given the relatively recent post Joe made in which he strongly proclaimed that 4E was doing great, I'm rather surprised (albeit pleasantly) to hear that he's considering branching out in terms of adventures for other systems.




Good point.

IIRC, didn't Joe Goodman say this before Pathfinder was released?  The last relevant article I can find offhand is one from the Kobold Quarterly:

An EL 20 Conversation with Joseph Goodman « Kobold Quarterly Magazine: Monsters and Magic for D&D Gamers

There is the possibility that Pathfinder has been looking more attractive in recent months than 4E, for a small 3PP publisher.

IMHO the most definite sign of the 4E 3PP market being functionally "dead", would be if Goodman stops producing any new 4E modules and starts producing new modules only for Pathfinder or another system.


----------



## darjr (Jan 4, 2010)

I fail to see the clash between his two comments.

I do love the idea. I would very much like to have stats for other systems already cooked for the adventures I own.


----------



## Pour (Jan 4, 2010)

I would be up for interchangable systems if it still meant that I'd be getting an adventure well-designed for 4e. 

I have to address doomsayers and state that I really don't want to lose 4e support from Goodman, if that really is the writing on the wall. Your Creature Caches, especially Fey and Lovecraftian Bestiary, have seen regular use in my game. I'm a huge fan of you guys supplying us 4e fans with material and can't stress enough how important it is to continue that support.

Given Paizo's amazing adventure paths and the frankly lackluster Scales of War, I'd love to see a Goodman adventure path, as well as chronicles and material comparable to 3e/Pathfinder supplements for 4e. Goodman is one of the only names I trust for third party and likely the only company willing to tackle such things which I feel are sorely needed.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 4, 2010)

Mark said:
			
		

> Will you be translating this one, too?




Don't think the thought hasn't occurred to me. 

(Although I doubt that Piratecat would be quite so forgiving this time around.   )


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Don't think the thought hasn't occurred to me.
> 
> (Although I doubt that Piratecat would be quite so forgiving this time around.   )




Cue up:

*** X-Files theme music ***


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 4, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Cue up:
> 
> *** X-Files theme music ***




The Spoof Is Out There 



That said, you were right to point out that Joe's previous post was made before Pathfinder came out, so maybe that's significantly changed the layout of the RPG marketplace.


----------



## samursus (Jan 4, 2010)

I would tenatively put my support in for either a 4e native or system neutral with downloadable stats series.  Like others have said, not sure how it would work out, but would be willing to to give it a try.  I am not a huge fan of the WotC modules so far in this edition, and am encouraging of others to try and provide better adventures.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 4, 2010)

Will be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 4, 2010)

It seems to me, that they've already made up their minds about this. Soliciting to a fragmented community for guidance? That's no way to run a business.
I think it's more likely, they are saying these things to appear as though they are listening to the voices of the community as a way of heading off the ****storm that will follow them either dropping 4e support or drastically changing their format/pricing model.
*polishes tinfoil hat*


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> It seems to me, that they've already made up their minds about this. Soliciting to a fragmented community for guidance? That's no way to run a business.




Allegedly Joseph Goodman has a real full time day job outside of the rpg world.  Goodman Games may very well be his own hobby side business, which in principle he can probably drop on a dime without drastically affecting his own financial well being.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 4, 2010)

The old school movement seems more open and inviting to other publishers but I don't know if it has the purchasing power to make such a venture worthwhile. Most of those on the small publishing side that I tend to read seem to indicate a rather smallish scale of things but I have no insider information on this. What was it.... Stonehell dungeon where the author was mentioning something like 500 units solid and I think that included PDF?

Pathfinder... I wouldn't qualify that as 'old school' as much as the d20 branch.

If 4e isn't cutting it and they suspect that Pathfinder would... then Pathfinder is the way to go. In addition, there would be less hassel in the transformation of product from 3.5 to old school 1st ed.  Might make it a more viable method, espeically for convention materials.


----------



## aboyd (Jan 4, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Historically, has there ever been any successful module product lines which were stated for multiple rpg rulesets or had generic stats (ie. "Orc, 6 hp, axe, chainmail")?



Yes, in fact in the thread on goodmangames.com, I just posted that I loved the system-neutral Freeport series of modules, and that I would be happy to have more.  Freeport was pretty popular, right?

I think I might in fact _prefer_ modules that are system neutral, just so that I can easily swap conversion documents when I change systems.  I'm 3.5 now, but what if I change to Pathfinder?  Or C&C?  Or T&T?  I won't change to 4th, but I'd certainly consider 5th in a few years when it comes out.  It'd be great to have an old familiar module that I can use to learn the ropes of the new system.

The only trick is that these conversion documents need good layout.  It should be clear what areas tie together.  I should be able to flip open the module to a particular area, and then flip open the conversion document, and lay each page side by side so that I can run the encounter easily (as easily as possible with 2 separate booklets).


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 4, 2010)

Actually, I would say, no.

Freeport's success hasn't turned into Green Ronin supporting it or other game neutral books. If not for Expeditious Retreat Press, there would be no 4e book for it.

I'm not saying the books did poorly or anything of that nature, but the fact that they are not doing that with say, Book of the Righteous or their various monstrous books, especially the demons/devils/daemons one, seems to speak more volumes than having the PDFs of the various Freeport settings.



aboyd said:


> Yes, in fact in the thread on goodmangames.com, I just posted that I loved the system-neutral Freeport series of modules, and that I would be happy to have more.  Freeport was pretty popular, right?
> 
> I think I might in fact _prefer_ modules that are system neutral, just so that I can easily swap conversion documents when I change systems.  I'm 3.5 now, but what if I change to Pathfinder?  Or C&C?  Or T&T?  I won't change to 4th, but I'd certainly consider 5th in a few years when it comes out.  It'd be great to have an old familiar module that I can use to learn the ropes of the new system.
> 
> The only trick is that these conversion documents need good layout.  It should be clear what areas tie together.  I should be able to flip open the module to a particular area, and then flip open the conversion document, and lay each page side by side so that I can run the encounter easily (as easily as possible with 2 separate booklets).


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2010)

aboyd said:


> Yes, in fact in the thread on goodmangames.com, I just posted that I loved the system-neutral Freeport series of modules, and that I would be happy to have more.  Freeport was pretty popular, right?




I haven't looked that closely at the system neutral Freeport stuff.  The only Freeport stuff I've used in the past, was the older books with 3E/3.5E rules.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 4, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Hm, given the relatively recent post Joe made in which he strongly proclaimed that 4E was doing great, I'm rather surprised (albeit pleasantly) to hear that he's considering branching out in terms of adventures for other systems.





Its called being smart. This model has failed before, but no one has ever used the internet in the manner he suggests, and I think this will be a big win for him if he does so.

Personally I would prefer the simple stat and download your favorite version model myself, but I think he would do best to keep it primarily for 4E and support the rest with free DL's.

Which doesn't really matter to those of us who play C&C, 4E is just as easy to convert as anything else is. Which is easy, period. Then for those of us who find such conversions to be too much of a problem, if Joe does it for Basic, 1E, or 2E, it becomes dirt simple for anyone who uses C&C.

So I hope he does this, since its a big win for my favorite system. Plus I have been running Hackmaster Basic lately as well, and if Joe sticks to primarily monsters already in the HMb book and the upcoming Bestiary conversion for that will be simple as well. 

So I definitely hope Joe goes ahead and does this.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> I think it's more likely, they are saying these things to appear as though they are listening to the voices of the community as a way of heading off the ****storm that will follow them either dropping 4e support or drastically changing their format/pricing model.
> *polishes tinfoil hat*




If Goodman's main customers are the hardcore players + DM types, getting comments and feedback is probably the easiest on forums like this.  At the present time, I would be quite surprised if many casual players are regularly buying any of Goodman's titles.  (In my present gaming group, none of the players know anything about Goodman Games).

Nevertheless, at minimum Joseph Goodman posting his thoughts will probably give a good idea what type of fallout will happen with the proposed possible changes, in the comments.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 4, 2010)

I'm not a big module guy, but I will say I definitely wouldn't buy a module if it wasn't in my native system. Even if I could download the stats, to me the point of a module is as a timesaver.

Generally I make my own games, the only time I use modules is when I need an adventure and I have no time to spare. So if I have to consult multiple documents to run teh adventure, its a no go for me.


----------



## delericho (Jan 4, 2010)

Goodman Games said:
			
		

> What's a module publisher to do?




Pick a system and run with it. Trying to cover all the bases is a fool's errand -you'll end up producing product that is less good than the 'native' versions for each system, so people will just go to the native publishers instead.

I would suggest that you should go with 4e, as that is the biggets group. However, if you have found that 4e adventures just don't sell, then go for the next biggest group (I assume that's Pathfinder?).

If _those_ don't sell, then I suspect none of the other groups are big enough to even really consider. Which is a shame, but there it is.


----------



## Henrix (Jan 4, 2010)

I don't think that systemless modules would sell we. They'd only really appeal to the old school crowd, I think, and that is hardly enough for Goodman.

4e is the biggest, and making a module for 4e means that you can just supply 3e stats and it works. 
A 3e module does not really convert well to 4e, but the reverse is true. You'd perhaps have to do a few tricks to convert skill challenges (or just roleplay them), but that shouldn't be too hard.

Converting them to old school would hardly be a problem either. Supplying monsters and stuff that are available in all systems could perhaps be a little difficult, but I don't know - perhaps there are already open source versions you can use in most of them.

So, 4e modules with an old school feel would be just perfect.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2010)

I definitely want the stats for the system I'm using there in the module; although a page reference to the relevant Monster Manual would do.  I don't see much value in separately downloadable stats.

I've run a bunch of 3e & C&C DCCs and recently grown increasingly concerned about the lack of quality control; in particular the lack of good descriptive text/fluff in many modules.   The maps are often poor, too. Interspersing them with old TSR modules has really brought home the gap in quality.  I haven't used any 4e DCCs yet though, hopefully this has improved, and my e-download of Castle Whiterock looks decent.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 4, 2010)

Personally I think you would do well in the 4e market. Currently the only good campaign out there is the WotBS. WotC has uninspiring dungeon crawls and a lot of the 3pp products are uninspired dungeon crawls with crappy encounters.

I think that you will be mediocre products if you go the seperate-stat-block route. 4e and 3.5 has some major differences to how you run the game and combats.

I am using a lot of pre-made modules, but the two groups I am running has some overlap, so I need two different sets of good modules, but this doesn't exist. A subscription at about 6-7$ pr pdf shouldn't be a hard sell.

If you are doing the modules as PDF and print-on-demand as done by Enworld I think you should make one pdf for each target system. Make it for 4e to start with, get feedback and make the pdf's for the other target systems. Converting from 4e to 3.5 for instance shouldn't take more than maybe 30-40% of the time it took you to make the original, and you can reuse art/maps.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2010)

A think a big problem for no-statblock modules is that you're competing with everything else that has ever been published!  Eg I have a lot of great Necromancer Games 3e material that I can convert to 4e as easily as I could take a generic product and convert it to 4e.

I would suggest sticking with 4e, but include single-line statblocks compatible with OD&D/AD&D/retro-clones, eg  "Orc AC 6/14 hd 1 hp 5  ATT +1/THAC0 19 dam 1d8".  You can't do this with 3e as the stat blocks are too large, and I would not recommend having 3e/Pathfinder and 4e blocks in the same printed product.  I would suggest alternative printings for both, but print one and free download for the other might work.

But the main thing is, pay attention to quality.  I've bought lots of DCCs because they're cheap and have fun ideas, but too often I've been let down in play by boring maps and a lack of meaningful descriptive text.  My biggest disappointment was 3e _Dreaming Caverns of the Duergar_ - after the umpteenth boring-cavern-with-1-Duergar, my players rebelled and refused to play further!  I suggest making it compulsory on authors that they include a brief para of boxed text in each location that properly describes what the players see.


----------



## Starfox (Jan 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## Windjammer (Jan 4, 2010)

My take on this: 

Whether one is playing Pathfinder, 3.5., or 4E, any DM for any of those systems have the Monster Manual. The monsters therein overlap, and that overlap lets you tap into a huge number of monster combinations. (I say, for 4E you really need to add the MM 2, but then no self-respecting 4E DM should be without one.  )

Hence my suggestion to Goodman:

Leave out stat blocks - reference the respective MMs with page numbers.
Use the 4E format for encounter groups, and use that format for referencing 3.5/Pathfinder encounters too. And, most importantly, give the page numbers direct. 4E started to do this in _Revenge of the Giants_, speeds up finding the critters (I hope they continue that trend - hated to pencil these refs in in my MMs).

Here's an example. Let's look at Paizo's Burnt Offerings, opening sequence (beware SPOILERs!).



> *Encounter 1: Initial Assault*
> 
> 3.5 > MM 133: 3 goblin warriors
> PF > Bestiary 156: 3 goblin warriors
> ...



In suggesting this, I'm biased as a DM who really likes to run encounters off the Monster Manual. I'm a bit surprised, to be honest, that this isn't a more widespread practice. Both Pathfinder and 4E pride themselves to boast bestiaries which allow you to run monsters out of the book, where 3.5 often fell short (dragons, anyone?). It's extremely simply - all you need are 2-4 post-it's which you stick into you MM/Bestiary at the beginning of your encounter, and then flipping between the pages takes only a second as you don't need to find the same pages over and over within that encounter.

What I'm saying, in short, is that Goodman shouldn't focus on providing the stat blocks but on providing the meat of adventures. That's where WotC falls short, and it would serve GG well to offer an alternative.

Offering stat block "short versions" (as in, hp, AC, and to-hit only) won't work for 90% of the monsters - for those you need to head to the respective MM of your preferred edition, so I suggest to do that straight away.

PS. What could help Goodman with respect to evaluating the cogency of my proposal is an Enworld poll re: do you run encounters off your Monster Manual(s), or do you print them out separately?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2010)

It is useful to remember that there are multiple markets to serve.

In order of size, there's Mainstream, Customers, Repeat Customers, and then there are Evangelists (or, "true fans.")

WotC does not compete for the Mainstream market. Certainly, they want to and they need to, but D&D competes for Mainstream dollars (against, for example, Halo, Guitar Hero, or Grand Theft Auto) in the same way that Pathfinder competes with D&D-- which is to say, not at all. Have you seen that viral video of the kid opening up his XBox 360 on Christmas morning and having a total geekjoy meltdown? How about the viral video where the kid opens his box set of D&D? D&D is an insignificant competitor in the mainstream market. 

WotC has a dominating position in a _niche _market: their Customers. This is the market that WotC dominates. This market numbers (I estimate) hundreds of thousands of copies of the core ruleset, and it's sold into big bookstore chains and each and every hobby store. Paizo's competition with WotC in this market scale is also insignificant.

I'll note briefly that it's difficult to even get a read on this market, because Customers _don't fill out survey cards_. They aren't invested enough to even do that. They spend $50 bucks and they _move on_.

Next, there are Repeat Customers. Take that huge Customer pool above and start taking a scalpel to it. Slice away all those copies of the game that sold to one-time purchasers: those who bought the core rules, perhaps they got it as a gift from Mom or Grandma, those who may or may not even ever play it. Once you carve away all the Customers, now you can start looking at the pool of Repeat Customers who will actually come back and invest MORE money into the hobby. They aren't buying the game; they are buying into ongoing support for the game.

If you don't have Repeat Customers, then you are locked into a business model that requires a regular release of the core rules in order to generate revenue from Customers again. This is very boom-and-bust.

Last but not least you have what I call Evangelists. These are the people who are not only going to be Repeat Customers, they are going to actively spread your game to other gamers and convert them to (at least) Customers and perhaps even Repeat Customers. The Evangelists are a marketing resource-- a treasure.

So now Goodman should quite naturally be looking at the market he wants to serve. He's not competing for Mainstream dollars or even WotC's Customer base. He's going to be competing for Repeat Customer or Evangelist dollars. 

Whose pie does he want a piece of? 

Does he want to try to get a piece of WotC's admittedly huge Customer base-- customers who have already spent $50 and moved on? This is a customer base that is so tight-fisted that WotC themselves have to figure out how to squeeze another dollar out of them. 

However, inside the base of Repeat Customers and Evangelists, Paizo *absolutely *competes with WotC. In fact Paizo (because of the _consistently high _quality of their work and dedication to their customers) can count a greater proportion of Evangelists among their Repeat Customer base than WotC. There's no doubt in my mind on that count. Paizo has courted and cultured true fans who are eager to spend money on their hobby and eager to get other people playing their game.

Meanwhile WotC has decided to compete for Mainstream dollars. That may yet prove to be the best choice: the value of D&D for a company the size of WotC/Hasbro is in the *brand*, not in the pissant business of publishing rpg books. They need the rpg business to keep pushing the brand mainstream to increase its value in other businesses (novels, video games, etc.) which can make a difference on the scale of business in which they operate. 

So I reckon Goodman Games is running a little EV (expected value) calculation. X customers with $Y dollars to spend with Z% likelihood of finding and purchasing your product. With 4e, X is very large; $Y and Z% very small; with Paizo, X is much (much) smaller, but $Y and Z% might be larger. 

Compete in a huge market of gamers who have empirically proven that they aren't spending any money on the hobby, or compete in a much smaller market of gamers who do spend money on their hobby (and don't do it in a zero-sum fashion-- with Repeat Customers and Evangelists, you grow the pie.)


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 4, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Hm, given the relatively recent post Joe made in which he strongly proclaimed that 4E was doing great, I'm rather surprised (albeit pleasantly) to hear that he's considering branching out in terms of adventures for other systems.




4E was doing super well for him, right?  Then why are we even having this conversation?  Has so much changed in just 4 months?


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 4, 2010)

I've bought a number of your products. I'd buy a module then download the edition-relevant stats. The crucial part would be labeling. You would have to put the fact that you could get the download right on the cover and communicate well with hobby store owners.

But what I'd do is try to do an online special: do what you're suggesting (same module, several different systems) and do it online only with the possibility of using one of those printing services. If there's a demonstrated market demand for that, compared to other pdf modules, then give it a dead tree try.

But what I'd REALLY do? Do a free short adventure with your download stats approach for GM's Day. See what the response is. Then decide.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 4, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> 4E was doing super well for him, right?  Then why are we even having this conversation?  Has so much changed in just 4 months?




I'd wager that WotC with 4e and the product strategy has regained control of much of their customer base, and that this and the digital initiative have started to have an effect on sales of 3pp products.

I believe people are sending their money exclusively to WotC, and not to 3pp publishers. Much due to the DDi and the tools offered there. And 4 months ago this might not have been evident, but now the trends are visible and Goodman wants to figure out a change in his strategy.

EDIT: Oh, and put me down as not wanting adventures written for different systems at the same time. I've got so many first, second, third and even fourth edition adventures that it's not even funny any more. So for me to buy a module it has to be spectacularily cool and suited for running with minimum fuzz for my current edition of choice: 4e. But honestly I don't see what would bring me in, what with all that's on offer already in Dungeon.

/M


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 4, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> 4E was doing super well for him, right?  Then why are we even having this conversation?  Has so much changed in just 4 months?




Not all people are satisfied with status quo. Maybe Joe has noticed that his share of the market doesn't change, maybe it has gone slightly down, maybe it's something else. Needless to say, just because things aren't going well doesn't mean you can or shouldn't make changes.

Then again, maybe the 3pp 4e market is drying up and GG wants to ensure their survival.

With that said, i am not sure it is the way to go. Modules made for several editions will inevitably make compromises along the way, making them less than they can be. I doubt that would increase sales. Edition neutral modules with downloads of the appropriate statblocks or references to MM pages might work better, but afaik, there is a GSL problem there. Now, GG adventures aren't published under the GSL, but can they then reference MM pages without getting in trouble? I have no idea, but I am guessing it could be an issue.

I think GG needs to consider that maybe the DCC line has run it's course, meaning that maybe it's just not that type of modules that the modern gamer wants anymore. I am pretty sure there is a 4e market for good adventures, but if GG's DCC's do not sell enough, then perhaps it's the style that needs to change. Of course, this is all assuming that the 4e DCC line doesn't sell well anymore.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jan 4, 2010)

I'm not really sure that one module with multiple conversions will actually translate all that well. The difference in the way encounters and rewards are built in 4E is quite a bit different from its predecessors. You'd have to do more than just change the monster stats, you'd have to change the qty and combination of creatures, and possibly alter the treasure too.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 4, 2010)

I have ALOT of Goodman Games 3.5 DCC products both PDF and in Print. In fact I think that I have most of the DCC's and I'm probably missing about 7-8 of them. Just like with WOTC I was a big supporter of Goodman Games during 3.5 but now about 95% of my gaming budet goes to Paizo. 

Even if Goodman games were to produce Pathfinder compatible adventures: why would I support them? I have a metric but load of their 3.5 product which is easily convertible to Pathfinder. I subscribe to Paizo's AP's and I pick up the occasional standalone adventure from Paizo as well. 

I think Goodman Games made their choice to go where the money was (4E) and they should stick with that choice. Either way it was a choice that lost me as a customer. They werent concerned with supporting multiple systems then, [hypothetical] why should they be now? [hypothetical].


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I think GG needs to consider that maybe the DCC line has run it's course, meaning that maybe it's just not that type of modules that the modern gamer wants anymore. I am pretty sure there is a 4e market for good adventures, but if GG's DCC's do not sell enough, then perhaps it's the style that needs to change. Of course, this is all assuming that the 4e DCC line doesn't sell well anymore.




Yes, I'd certainly interpret sagging sales of 4e DCCs as an indication that the most successful adventure module line of all time had run its course and needed fundamental change.

But definitely, definitely not indicative of anything to do with 4e.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jan 4, 2010)

3.5 or Pathfinder print versions will get me back on board for Goodman Goodness.   I miss the DCC line.

Zero interest in 4E.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 4, 2010)

I think it is more likely Joseph is looking to expand his customer base and increase sales, not replace any "lost" 4e customers. 

I can see Pathfinder/3.5e being profitable, but I'm not so sure about 1e/OSRIC. As much as I love the "old school" movement, I'm not sure it's of significant size to support anything more than what's already out there now - a few (really good) small press publishers and grass root fan support. 

Before 4e came out, Goodman Games converted a few of their DCCs to 1e/OSRIC. Perhaps they could do something similar for 3.5e/Pathfinder with say, the 4e Punjar series, and place those in a single book as an "adventure path". Like they did with _Saga of the Rat King_ for 1e/OSRIC.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 4, 2010)

My best guess is that they see a lot of gamers on the other side of the aisle. If you can keep the ones you have AND get some of those others (some of whom may have played DCCs in the past) it is a good move. 

It seems they are reacting to the schism and trying to make the most of it. Makes sense IMO. A lot has changed since the 3.5 boom/bust, and companies need to change as well.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 4, 2010)

3e/Pf players buy products, but they are small. 4e players should buy 3pp, but they don't. What's a publisher to do? Can't say. I know what my answer is as a creative person: find the medium that inspires you and make the best stuff you know how. What you can picture in your mind, the thing that makes you say, "Yeah, that'd be awesome!", do that.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 4, 2010)

I think there's always going to be a demand for good *adventures* from 3PPs, no matter what edition. But if you can't put something like a class into WotC's DDI thingy, then 4e is effectively out for 3PPs.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 4, 2010)

I'm currently playing 3E, started playing 4e in several test sessions and will eventually switch to 4e completely.

To be honest I don't see a lot of need for additional adventure modules right now.

For 4e there's Dungeon, the RPGA, the WotC modules, and WotBS. That's already a lot of modules. From 3e / Pathfinder there's still many modules that should be quite easy to convert. There's definitely a great many more than I could ever play.

Additionally, thinking back about the 3e DCC modules I have (about 2/3 of the available ones), I don't think many translate well into 4e. Imho, they're mostly quite edition-specific. They make extensive use of tactics and monster abilities that are edition-specific. I'm not at all sure they'd survive a translation into 4e well.

To me the question is: Would modules written for 4e translate well into 3e / Pathfinder?

About the only modules I'd really be interested in right now, are setting-specific modules. E.g. since I'm probably going to use the Eberron setting for 4e I'd like to see more Eberron adventures. Since I'm a fan of Dark Sun, I'd probably get any new adventure modules for Dark Sun, too.

That's something that Goodman Games or other third parties cannot provide, though.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 4, 2010)

It could be that too of course. I didnt mention the possibility because I knew someone else would and because I do not believe any 3pp has enough status to be that tightly linked to how 4e fares. Most dnd players do not know who goodman games is..







Wulf Ratbane said:


> Yes, I'd certainly interpret sagging sales of 4e DCCs as an indication that the most successful adventure module line of all time had run its course and needed fundamental change.
> 
> But definitely, definitely not indicative of anything to do with 4e.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jan 4, 2010)

I think the design considerations for a good 4e module are different from those of a good 1e or 3.x module.  Just converting the stats probably wouldn't cut it, in my opinion.  And with an increasing number of modules being released for my preferred system (or one that is _highly_ compatible in its stats and approach to the game), a 4e module with converted stats would be _very_ low on my list of likely purchases.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jan 4, 2010)

*stick with 4E*

Add me to the list of people who think that it's untenable to make an adventure that works with both 4E and earlier versions, with different statblocks.  

I don't play 4E, but I look at it this way:

1) if you write for 3E/Pathfinder, your modules compete with Paizo

2) if you write for 4E, your modules compete with WoTC

Paizo's stuff is topnotch, while WoTC's is subpar.  So, I think you'll do better staying with 4E.  You can basically try to occupy the niche Paizo had in 3E.  If you can't make staying with 4E work, you can try the generic module thing, but my sense is that the 4E world assumptions are so different from previous editions that it won't work.

Ken


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 4, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Add me to the list of people who think that it's untenable to make an adventure that works with both 4E and earlier versions, with different statblocks.
> 
> I don't play 4E, but I look at it this way:
> 
> ...




Sounds good.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 4, 2010)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> I think the design considerations for a good 4e module are different from those of a good 1e or 3.x module.  Just converting the stats probably wouldn't cut it, in my opinion.  And with an increasing number of modules being released for my preferred system (or one that is _highly_ compatible in its stats and approach to the game), a 4e module with converted stats would be _very_ low on my list of likely purchases.





From my experience I think you and everyone else who says it would translate badly between editions are wrong.

Why? I have used the 4E Punjar modules, all of the, converted to my C&C game.
 I have also done the same with modules from every single edition of D&D, and they all "translate" just fine to C&C.

Plus you people need to remember, if your playing 4E your PC's and your game to game rules of movement, etc... are already taken care of by YOU, not the module.

Same deal if your playing 3E.

Same deal for any other RPG your running.

Plus I don't know about the rest of you, but the number of monsters and the amount of treasure given in a module has never been followed by me UNLESS I thought my group could handle the creatures as written and the treasure was to my liking to begin with.

Apparently a lot of you only run modules exactly as written and never change anything.

So if you think having 5 foot squares instead of 10 foot squares, or having too many monsters or too few, or the treasure isn't "just right", not having done perfectly right for you is a "game breaker" then I am rather disappointed, I have always had this image that RPGers were creative and thrived on adaptation and improvisation, apparently I have been wrong all this time.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I do not believe any 3pp has enough status to be that tightly linked to how 4e fares. Most dnd players do not know who goodman games is..




Cool! This calls for a Venn diagram!

Goodman has a few options, here.

1) He can try to increase the size of the group of people buying 4e products (as that circle enlarges, it will encompass more of his product)

2) He can try to expand the group of people who have heard of Goodman Games (as that circle enlarges, it will encompass more of those already buying 4e support material). In addition, this enlarging circle may expand into other rulesets (3e, PF) that do not intersect the large 4e circle.

3) He can keep both groups the same size and focus on intruding his circle into the group of 4e supporters.

That wedge I highlighted in red is Goodman's problem: People who own 4e, have heard of Goodman Games, but aren't buying 4e support material (neither from WotC nor anybody else). I suspect that group is larger than it appears in my diagram.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jan 4, 2010)

Treebore said:


> From my experience I think you and everyone else who says it would translate badly between editions are wrong…I have also done the same with modules from every single edition of D&D, and they all "translate" just fine to C&C.



Heck, going beyond D&D editions, I think it's possible to take a Tunnels & Trolls module, or a Rolemaster module, or a Runequest module, and "translate" it to the D&D edition of your choice.  Depending on the skill of the DM, the amount of work (or on-the-fly changes and improvisations) he's willing to perform, the approach he uses in his game, and the systems involved, that might be viable.  But I don't think those are good assumptions for a module line.

I like modules to save me some time and effort.  If I have to make many changes to the module (on the fly or not), I think I'm often better off just creating something up myself.  (In fact, I think that's often less work, compared to reading/digesting/altering another's work.)  I'm not just talking about stats, but also how well the module integrates into my campaign and how well its design and approach matches my preferences.  

Frankly, modules are a tough sell, for me, to begin with.  And the bigger the gap between my preferences on system/design/style and the module's, the harder the sell.  I *can* convert anything; but I'm not willing to pay money for something that I'm essentially going to re-do, anyway.



> I have always had this image that RPGers were creative and thrived on adaptation and improvisation…



Well, that's just it.  If I'm going to be creative, anyway, why not just do my own thing, instead of re-interpreting a module?


----------



## bytor4232 (Jan 4, 2010)

I would say produce two products, 4E and generic.  Then we have have downloadable stats.

However, skilled DMs should be able to convert the monsters themselves, especially if they are playing OD&D or AD&D.  I've been doing on the fly conversions for a while now, us old school DMs are used to it.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 4, 2010)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Cool! This calls for a Venn diagram!
> 
> Goodman has a few options, here.
> 
> ...




You are funny, in the good way. I agree that if indeed GG's problem is the lack of players, or perhaps rather DM's, who know of GG and their products, there is a lot of other things GG can do besides the multiple edition modules. Which is your point I gather? Since that doesn't seem to be on the table, it must be because 4e itself is losing momentum. Either way, I do not see it as clearcut. Now, I have little to do with the industry, but I do know that exposure of the kind that GG would probably need in order to enlarge its circle significantly would probably cost a ton of money. Money that I am guessing they simply do not have.

As a small note to you, Wulf. I am not disputing that 4e could be doing poorly/worse/not-so-good. I do not hope so, but honestly, we probably won't know until WotC tells us (which will never happen) or until 5e is announced. My point is simply that *if* the DCC line is not doing as well as say 4 months ago, where it was doing great, according to Joseph, that's simply not enough to claim that 4e is doing poorly as well.

For all I care, 5e can come along whenever. If its better than 4e, I will happily switch, because the small amounts of money I spend on D&D ($50-$100 per month) is relatively small and insignificant compared to what else I would use the money on. So whether I buy all 4e books or all 5e books is pretty much a wash for me. I just want the best possible system.


----------



## Stereofm (Jan 4, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> Add me to the list of people who think that it's untenable to make an adventure that works with both 4E and earlier versions, with different statblocks.
> 
> I don't play 4E, but I look at it this way:
> 
> ...




This.

Also, I bought quite a number of the old DCCs, and the "old school" approach as defined by them is not really my cup of tea at the moment. They'd need to change the writing formula to grab my attention this time around.

+ side : exotic locations
- side : way too much fights, plot too thin.

IMO of course.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 4, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> As a small note to you, Wulf. I am not disputing that 4e could be doing poorly/worse/not-so-good. I do not hope so, but honestly, we probably won't know until WotC tells us (which will never happen) or until 5e is announced. My point is simply that *if* the DCC line is not doing as well as say 4 months ago, where it was doing great, according to Joseph, that's simply not enough to claim that 4e is doing poorly as well.




I have not said that 4e is not doing well-- I mean, just look at that Venn diagram! Look at the size of that circle!-- I said that it's not doing well _where it counts _for Goodman Games: among those folks in the market for support material (and specifically for 3pp support). 

It doesn't matter to Goodman Games if 4e continues to sell 10,000 units a month if those purchases don't translate into sales for him. Step one is convincing those purchasers to adopt the "repeat purchase" model and Goodman would be _competing with WotC _in that effort. 

If Paizo's admittedly much smaller fanbase is more willing to buy GG adventures, then he needs to be marketing to them. He doesn't need to convince them to be repeat purchasers. They're already there. It's one less hurdle.

If the 4e fans here at ENworld wanted GG adventures, they have had ample opportunity to pony up. Get out of the red wedge.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 4, 2010)

Treebore said:


> So if you think having 5 foot squares instead of 10 foot squares, or having too many monsters or too few, or the treasure isn't "just right", not having done perfectly right for you is a "game breaker" then I am rather disappointed, I have always had this image that RPGers were creative and thrived on adaptation and improvisation, apparently I have been wrong all this time.




You've been wrong.
Personally I'm with you on this, but I'm thinking that you and I are probably around the same age and can remember a time where the market wasnt slathered in splatbooks and extras and that if we wanted to add something into the game that wasn't there we had to make it ourselves.  

I've noticed that a fair amount of newer players & GM's want to do as little work as possible and if the adventure isn't exactly what they want then there is something wrong with the adventure. Whereas I think that people like you and my self aren't beyond changing things in a written adventure to better suit our players without throwing things completely out of whack. 

Is it lack of creativity or pure laziness? I'm not sure but sometimes I get taken aback at how much people are unwilling play around with whats in front of them. I mean not to long go I had someone actually tell me that if youre introducing house rules into a game that means the game wasn't well designed and is probably broken. Never mind the idea that different groups can play the same game in completely different ways from one another....


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 4, 2010)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I have not said that 4e is not doing well-- I mean, just look at that Venn diagram! Look at the size of that circle!-- I said that it's not doing well _where it counts _for Goodman Games: among those folks in the market for support material (and specifically for 3pp support).
> 
> It doesn't matter to Goodman Games if 4e continues to sell 10,000 units a month if those purchases don't translate into sales for him. Step one is convincing those purchasers to adopt the "repeat purchase" model and Goodman would be _competing with WotC _in that effort.
> 
> ...




It seems I am unable to tell when you are sarcastic and when you aren't. FWIW, I have almost all, if not all GG 4e products, and I am a big fan. My point had little to do with my own personal feelings about their products.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jan 4, 2010)

I'd say "stay 4E", but I'm personally of the opinion that system is a moot point due to the simple change in look and feel of the DCC line. The 4E DCC mods don't go very far, presentation-wise, to foster the same old-school look that the 3.5 versions did. I've seen explanations that the change in art direction was necessary in order to help game stores and distributors, but maybe its ok to go back to the look that works now?

I don't think its too shallow to say the look was a big part of the lines appeal!

Of course, thinking outside the box, my first choice would be to see Goodman do a *Dungeon Crawl Classics Roleplaying Game *(along the lines of Swords & Wizardry or even Castles & Crusades) and support that system with DCCs...


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 4, 2010)

There seems to be a number of issues here.

First, there is the business side.  Opening any gaming product to multiple game systems makes sound business sense to me.  I mean, the point is to gain as high a profit from selling as high a number of a single product as possible, right?  So it makes sense to accommodate as many customer markets as possible. 4E will be the biggest market and I would be sure to include them in the most profitable way. But other games open other markets for the same product.  So if, under 4e license, you can print alternate system rule in a single books, then I say do so.  

Second, there is the accessibility issue.  Do you add an appendix, put multiple stats in the text, or or offer additional conversions for PDF download?  This also has a business side because page count increases costs, while downloads affect ease of use.  I don't have a problem with downloading a conversion, but plenty of others have voiced that they would.  Accessibility means not just the printed stats for a system, but the off-the-shelf, no alterations needed, purchase-and-play ease of the module.

Third, there are the design requirements inherent in each system.  4E assumes discrete Encounters and Skill Challenges with little to nothing in between.  PF and 3.x assume balancing considerations both in and out of combat bearing little resemblance to 4E.  Older D&D has design considerations too, but most DMs use their own formulas.  On top of this are the different expectations buyers have of modules.  Are they storylines? Are they sandboxes? Are they a linked series of battles and skill challenges?  Are they hidden from the players? Can they offer something not included in a publisher's game system?  And as Starfox pointed out some fans prefer an adventure be literature to read.

Fourth, there is the advertising.  This is more a subtlety, then a conflict in my view.  Depending upon how the module or supplement is designed and supports accessibility, how do you ensure customers will trust it from advertising alone?  "Supports <list> of systems" is a given, but many buyers will then be expecting different things from it.  WotC's layout is very different from Paizo' and both are different from 3.x.

Fifth, there is the issue of fan made contributions.  Do their conversions or alterations become available on your website?  Some fans may consider a module not advertised to support their system as not worth buying because they don't know a conversion exists.  Others may see a conversion they disagree with in print and not consider the whole line as usable.

I don't see an easy way of making a module for multiple systems, but it does make good business sense in my mind.  

Dungeon Alphabet I haven't read, but I would like to get a look at.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 4, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Is it lack of creativity or pure laziness? I'm not sure but sometimes I get taken aback at how much people are unwilling play around with whats in front of them.



For me it's neither. I've never played a module without customizing it.

I guess I didn't get my point across:

After DMing roleplaying games for over 25 years I've accumulated hundreds of adventure modules. Many of those are _great_ and I'd love to run them at some point. However, my time is unfortunately finite. Even if I wanted to I couldn't possibly run all of those adventures. I've already extrapolated it would take me about another 40 years to run all of them _if_ I played weekly (which I don't - it's currently closer to monthly).

I.e. I've already got tons of adventures I could use after adapting them. Depending on the module's source system / edition this can be a lot of work or relatively easy.

So any module I'd be interested in needs to offer something I don't already have in abundance, which frankly doesn't leave a lot except what I already mentioned, i.e. something that fits exactly to the setting(s) and sytems/editions I'm currently using.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 4, 2010)

It also occurred to me that they might be trying to hedge their bets. What if 5e does not allow 3pp content? Goodman is out in the cold. Better to set a wider foundation now, so that it doesn't all tank in 2 years.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 4, 2010)

I'd be ok with systemless + rules/stat download but with some reservations.

My knee-jerk reaction was "pick a system and stick to it" but it then occurred to me that I haven't run a module straight-up without some modification for over 20 years.

I'm also a big fan of those OGL games: Pathfinder, Conan, Arcana Evolved, Game of Thrones, True20, etc.  If it were identified which systems would receive download stat support, it would help push me solidly into the "systemless" column.

Additionally, if one isn't playing some d20-based fantasy RPG, then there is typically a shortage of good modules.  I ultimately shifted away from GURPS to d20-based games b/c there was a much bigger base of material to choose from.

I initially thought it would be unworkable to modify a d20-based adventure to different systems but then I was flipping through my latest Pathfinder AP.  Plot-wise, the Paizo modules & APs are not game-mechanics heavy.  Also, while they will fully stat-out major NPCs & monsters, a large number are listed with a short reference pointing back to a monster sourcebook.

Finally, I don't buy modules for game stats - primarily due to the fact I have to customize the module and stats anyway.  I DO buy modules for plots, NPC histories/personalities, and maps.

I do, however, have serious doubts that a 4e adventure ports itself well to other games.  I believe there are just too many 4e-isms to strip out that aren't present in other games.  The approach to WotC content adopted by the GSL further compounds the issue in my view.  In much the same vein as reducing magic is hard but adding it in is easy, I believe adapting TO 4e is easier than adapting FROM 4e.  I know War of the Burning Sky did it, but if memory serves, it started out as a 3.5 AP.

YMMV.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2010)

Filcher said:


> It also occurred to me that they might be trying to hedge their bets. What if 5e does not allow 3pp content? Goodman is out in the cold. Better to set a wider foundation now, so that it doesn't all tank in 2 years.




Good point.  Mongoose pulled out of the 4E market recently, but they have all kinds of other stuff to fall back on (ie. Paranoia, Runequest, Traveller, etc ...).

At the present time, Goodman doesn't have much to fall back on in the event that 4E/5E D&D are no longer viable 3PP markets.


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 4, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Is it lack of creativity or pure laziness?




OT: Alternatively, it's about avoiding DM burnout. I buy modules for this precise reason. I see no reason to feel guilty about buying a module. I have enough to do creating NPCs, cities and cosmologies. If someone can do it better and save me the labor, I'm going to pay them money. I work way too much already and this is my hobby, not my job. 

And, by the way, when you speculate about these kids today off-topic, perhaps in the future you could entertain the thought that they might have a valid perspective?  /OT


----------



## Sunderstone (Jan 4, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> You've been wrong.
> Personally I'm with you on this, but I'm thinking that you and I are probably around the same age and can remember a time where the market wasnt slathered in splatbooks and extras and that if we wanted to add something into the game that wasn't there we had to make it ourselves.
> 
> I've noticed that a fair amount of newer players & GM's want to do as little work as possible and if the adventure isn't exactly what they want then there is something wrong with the adventure. Whereas I think that people like you and my self aren't beyond changing things in a written adventure to better suit our players without throwing things completely out of whack.
> ...




I think this is 2 different things. I imagine most DMs customize most pre-written adventures to suit their group, weaving in subplots to link characters closer to the main plot, tailoring items, omitting things which might bore the group, adding things as needed. This is not the issue.

Taking a 4E module and converting it is the issue, at least for me. 
Im not lazy and I dont suffer a lack of creativity, and im not sure I would like to be lumped under suck a blanket statement regardless. To me the hurdle is *TIME*.
I dont have the time to create my own adventures like I did when i was alot younger (im 40 now for the record). I work full time, have a significant other (with a teenage daughter to boot  ), I still enjoy my sci-fi movies, video games etc. 
Last thing I want to do is convert rules, especially from 4E to 3.5/PF. I just dont have that much time on my hands.


More on track though...
I thought Goodman did VERY well with his 3E/3.5 DCC stuff?  Maybe his 4E numbers have dropped (my assumption wrong or not***) who knows.  

*** late edit Im assuming this because his DCC forum seems dead and lets face it, if Goodmans 4E stuff was going strong would we even have this thread? Its also been a few months since weve seen a new 4E DCC.

Id say publish some for 3.5 or PF rules and see how it does, then compare. I think PF is the better way to go, IMHO. As much as I miss the DCC line, and I really want to support Goodman again, I just cant bring myself to buy the 4E DCC stuff. Just my preference.


----------



## Hierax (Jan 5, 2010)

IMO, DCC was a really great line but when it abandoned 3e and shifted to 4e it lost me - 1e/2e/3e/Pathfinder/Hackmaster are all easy to work with but 4e really just doesn't work for me (YMMV). I'll just pick up the old DCC 1e/3e ones that I'm missing. 

For the future, if some Pathfinder DCC's come out then I'd definitely check those out. Multi-system ones I'd need to actually preview them before deciding.

Regardless of what happens, I am thankful for all the great 3e (and 1e) versions of DCC!


----------



## scourger (Jan 5, 2010)

Our group liked the DCCs at one time.  I bought a couple of them, and another guy ran a couple.  Now, I can't see going back to a d20 module that isn't fairly toned-down on the complexity.  We're trying 4e, but I don't think it will last for us.  I still like d20, especially 3e, but it just gets too bogged down--particularly at higher levels.  Something simpler would be better, and it would be great if it came with minis or some sort of counters.  Something on the order of DDM with a representation on the table top for the foes that are still simple enough to be put on a card.  

What would actually really entice me would be DCCs for *Savage Worlds*.  Just in case Jospeh Goodman is reading this thread.


----------



## Starfox (Jan 5, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> 4E was doing super well for him, right?  Then why are we even having this conversation?  Has so much changed in just 4 months?




Maybe he just wants to do the things he likes to do and have as many people as possible enjoy his work. Pride of work translates very neatly to money in the bank here, but that does not mean pride is not a good motivation.




ShinHakkaider said:


> Is it lack of creativity or pure laziness?




A big part of it is that casual gamers often have a very limited time to do preparations. If you can tear 5 hours free for gaming every month, you want to be at the gaming table those five hours, not prepping things.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 5, 2010)

What's a publisher to do?

Go where the money's at.

The first question I'd ask is which systems, exactly, is he intending to support? He mentions 4e, Pathfinder, C&C, Fantasycraft, the retros, etc. Which does he actually want to support, because a module built for 4e's game-style doesn't mesh with C&C (or S&W, or BFRPG, or OSRIC, etc). Also, how big of a following DOES FantasyCraft or Dragon Age have? Is it big enough to factor into your calculus?

Next, your going to have design for some native system. Which is it? Every game has different parameters and design philosophies, so which are you going to take into account. For example, lets say you want to have an encounter with the city guard. How you gonna handle it? In 4e, it might be a skill challenge (with successes failures, DCs and level). In 3e, its a diplomacy roll (Just set a DC). In C&C is a attribute check (just set a level). In OSRIC, its simply a charisma check (with no modification except the PCs score). It'd be maddening (if not pointless) to try to come up with ALL of those contingencies. 

Another Example? Make a pit trap. Simple, 10' drop with spikes. What are its stats? Well, in 4e it has an attack modifier to hit the PCs reflex defense, while in 3e its has a reflex save DC, but in S&W its a saving throw vs dragon breath, etc. How bout an encounter? Well, 5 orcs vs a 1st level party is a fine encounter in 4e (where every fight is assumed to be 5 vs. 5 or equivalent) but in Pathfinder that's a CR 4 "Epic" encounter! And that doesn't begin to touch available resources, NPC stats, "world info" (aka the races and classes of the PCs and NPCs) treasure distribution, etc. 

The alternative to make modules so generic as to be pointless. I buy a module, I expect it (and I'm spoiled) to have monsters, treasure, stats, and everything ready. While I rarely run "out the box" I don't want some assembly required. If a DCC is reduced to "A city guard has info, if the PCs convince him to talk..." or "The hall has a 10 foot pit trap" or "This room contains several orcs, ready to fight." Its a waste. Its a map and some flavor text. Its not a module, its an adventure _suggestion._

My personal (and biased) opinion would be spin off DCCs into two lines, one for 4e, one for "d20" with an eye toward conversion to additional systems. Most Retro people are accustomed to going at it alone, so perhaps a PDF of "stats" by room would be all that you need to take a 3e module and bring it to retros. However, I think 4e's design philosophy is too radical to consider in the equation; if you want to support 4e then make it its own thing. Its not as difficult to take a 3e-based module and run it in OSRIC or LL (mostly by ignoring large swaths of system-junk) than it is to make a module for LL run in 3e or ANYTHING compatible with 4e. (Ask Necromancer Games how easy it is to convert 3e stuff to 4e...)

That's the opinion of a long-time Goodman fan whose saddened he's not bought anything GG since 4e...


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2010)

I own several 4e DCC's and a few 3e and an AD&D one. I really like them and will buy more. I'd prefer 4e and would not have issues using stats for other systems in a 4e adventure.

What I'd really love is 'living' support for them. So I could show up at cons or other events with purchased adventure in hand and run it for players with characters that they could run again at my table or others. Having something like that for several different systems would be fantastic.


----------



## aboyd (Jan 5, 2010)

Hierax said:


> IMO, DCC was a really great line but when it abandoned 3e and shifted to 4e it lost me - 1e/2e/3e/Pathfinder/Hackmaster are all easy to work with but 4e really just doesn't work for me (YMMV). I'll just pick up the old DCC 1e/3e ones that I'm missing.



Wow.  I'm just really surprised at how many people in this thread are posting pretty much the same thing I would post.  I've really felt like I've been going it alone for the past couple of years.  It's nice to see everybody.

::waves::



Remathilis said:


> Next, your going to have design for some native system. Which is it? Every game has different parameters and design philosophies, so which are you going to take into account. For example, lets say you want to have an encounter with the city guard. How you gonna handle it? In 4e, it might be a skill challenge (with successes failures, DCs and level). In 3e, its a diplomacy roll (Just set a DC). In C&C is a attribute check (just set a level). In OSRIC, its simply a charisma check (with no modification except the PCs score). It'd be maddening (if not pointless) to try to come up with ALL of those contingencies.



I dunno.  We have at least 2 examples in this thread of publishers doing this already, and it doesn't seem like it broke anybody's brains.  Joseph seems to want to do this, and frankly since it isn't even innovating, all he's really doing is copying -- hopefully with improvements.

For example, one of the things I've read in this thread is that people are concerned with the "difficulty" of having to have an adventure book open and then refer to a separate stat book as well.  To me, that's not a big deal.  I don't mean to diminish anyone's concerns -- there are some people for whom 2 booklets is a deal-breaker, and there's no changing their minds.  That's fine.  But I suspect that if the design was really good, there might be a lot of people on the fence who would shrug and say, "What the heck, I'll try it."

So consider this.  The module is systemless, but comes bundled with _one_ of the stat books.  That way, the 4th edition gang that can't stand anything less will be satisfied.  Then, since the other stat books are available for PDF download, page count really isn't an issue.  So maybe they do a room per page, or an encounter per page.  Thus, I print out the 3 sheets I need for the night, place them right next to the adventure module, and I'm off and running.  With all the space of a full page, GG might be able to even chart out some extras, such as a combat timeline or something showing a few quick "what if" scenarios ("If your party asks for listen checks..." or "If your party breaks down the door" and so on).

And that's just one idea that gives me warm fuzzies.  If it doesn't give you a warm fuzzy, consider that there might be an idea out there that makes the system more viable for you.  Who knows what Goodman will come up with?  So at this point, I don't have enough data to be pessimistic.  I'm actually kinda curious.

I will say that I agree with the other poster who said that the new 4th edition module covers are weak compared to the 3.5 edition modules, though.  Part of "old school feel" is actually having old school art.

Good luck, Joseph!


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 5, 2010)

I play 3.x and 4E and I just do not see how a single module can accomodate both games, unless it is about 1st to about 8th level. After that, spells take off in power too much.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 5, 2010)

How did that patronage one with the dwarves go? Were both parties happy with it? How extensive were the revisions? Anyone know? I think it was Open Design, same gentlemen who do Kobold Quarterly?


----------



## Badapple (Jan 5, 2010)

I used to work in the videogame industry a couple years ago and I'd routinely see games being developed that were simultaneously developed on xbox/gamecube/ps2/and pc.  The theory was it was the same basic code, lets port it to as many systems as possible to maximize sales.  The problem was there were tons of tradeoffs that would happen over the development cycle in order for the game to be compatable with all systems.  The game would have crappier graphics than it could have had otherwise (to accomodate ps2), less content than normal (to accomodate the gamecube's little discs that held less data), and the game was always a mess on the pc, since the user interface was designed for game controllers not a mouse.  In short the game might be ok, but it would have been a ton better if it was just exclusively designed for one system.  But it wouldn't have made as much money, so I could see the reasoning behind it.

It makes me sad to see this happening to D&D modules as well.  Some sore of weird generic hybrid module with downloadable stats for 4e, PF, and d20?  Ugh....  there would be too many tradeoffs.

I don't really see how an adventure module could be written for both 3e and 4e and still be good.  There's too much difference between the systems.  If a module came out that was "generic" with downloadable stats, I'd pass on it.  It might make more money, so I'd understand if that was the ultimate decision, but I think quality would suffer.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 5, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> . Its not as difficult to take a 3e-based module and run it in OSRIC or LL (mostly by ignoring large swaths of system-junk) than it is to make a module for LL run in 3e or ANYTHING compatible with 4e. (Ask Necromancer Games how easy it is to convert 3e stuff to 4e...)




I disagree with this since I have just finished a 21 session 3.5 game using scenarios written for LL/BX/BECMI D&D (3) or Castles & Crusades* (2) and converting on the fly, and it worked great, better than running adventures written for 3e I'd say.

I'm currently running a 4e campaign using a converted 3.5e adventure (Vault of Larin Karr) and that is proving a bit tougher, mostly because 1e-3e treasure often has no immediate counterpart in 4e.  Also I started at 1st level instead of 3e-VOLK's recommended 4th level and that has caused a bit of trouble as many of the 3e monsters are 9th-10th level in 4e.   Still, no major problems.

*DCCs:  Palace of Shadows, and the C&C version of The Slithering Overlord, run with 3e PCs in the 3rd-6th level range.  They were pretty good fun, but felt unfinished compared to the TSR modules I'd run in the same campaign - B7 Rahasia and B5 Horror on the Hill.  I finished off with X5 Temple of Death.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 5, 2010)

Badapple said:


> I don't really see how an adventure module could be written for both 3e and 4e and still be good.  There's too much difference between the systems.  If a module came out that was "generic" with downloadable stats, I'd pass on it.  It might make more money, so I'd understand if that was the ultimate decision, but I think quality would suffer.



Great analogy with the video games. I agree.

If the adventure layout follows the delve format of WotC's late 3e and 4e, I can see how it might be (relatively) easy to separate the generic adventure parts from the mechanics parts, but I don't think you can just plug in any system without losing what makes the module interesting in the first place.

In fact that's one thing I disliked about many of the free WotC adventures:
You could often easily replace every monster (and sometimes even the encounter areas) with something else without it having any detrimental effect on the adventure. The reason was that they didn't have much in the way of a story and the encounters weren't tailored to any theme.
But that's something I can do with minimal effort myself. It's not much different than using a random map and encounter generator.


----------



## joela (Jan 5, 2010)

Filcher said:


> Joseph Goodman soliciting input on the DCC line:
> 
> Goodman Games • View topic - Supporting multiple systems within the DCC's




I'd be interested, especially like the systemless with download appropriate stats option. Fan favorite Nicolas Logue of Sinister Adventures already plans something similar for his lineup:

_*The Razor Coast*

<snikt>

Purchase a print edition of this Dark Vista and get PDFs configured for multiple game systems for free. Purchase a PDF and get addtional PDFs compatible with other game systems for free as well._


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 5, 2010)

DDCs for HackMaster Basic!


----------



## joela (Jan 5, 2010)

Falstaff said:


> DDCs for HackMaster Basic!




DDCs for MRQ/BRP!


----------



## Scribble (Jan 5, 2010)

I find it interesting that people jump to the negative when reading this... IE his decision to branch out means either the DCC line is failing, or 4e is failing or whatever... 

I think it just means he's a relatively smart business guy. There are groups of consumers that he could be serving/getting money from, that he is not currently leveraging, so why not start doing so?


----------



## joela (Jan 5, 2010)

scribble said:


> i
> 
> i think it just means he's a relatively smart business guy. There are groups of consumers that he could be serving/getting money from, that he is not currently leveraging, so why not start doing so?




+1.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 5, 2010)

I remember hearing about ye old Razor Coast but how's it actually working?

Anyone using it? How's the various systems working on it?

Or is this still in process from... '08 I want to say?

Some great little adventure gems and nuggets of neaties from the line but the Razor Coast itself I don't think has been published and basing a game plan on someone that's been trying to do something that sounds like what you want to do, but actually hasn't done it?

If I'm wrong please give me a link. I'd be very interested in seeing what the final looks like.



joela said:


> I'd be interested, especially like the systemless with download appropriate stats option. Fan favorite Nicolas Logue of Sinister Adventures already plans something similar for his lineup:
> 
> _*The Razor Coast*
> 
> ...


----------



## ggroy (Jan 5, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> 4E was doing super well for him, right?  Then why are we even having this conversation?  Has so much changed in just 4 months?




One word:  Pathfinder.

The question is whether the hardcore crowd (ie. people who regularly buy rpg books) is petering out for 4E, and/or steadily increasing for Pathfinder.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 5, 2010)

ggroy said:


> One word:  Pathfinder.




Not according to Chris Sims.

When he was laid off from WotC last month, he posted here that there was D&D - and nothing else is even close.  

Pathfinder should have no significant impact if what he says is valid.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 5, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Not according to Chris Sims.
> 
> When he was laid off from WotC last month, he posted here that there was D&D - and nothing else is even close.
> 
> Pathfinder should have no significant impact if what he says is valid.




In Goodman's case, the question is how many of WotC's customers are also buying his books.  If not enough people are buying Goodman's 4E titles, it doesn't matter how many books WotC sell.  (What exactly is "enough" people in Goodman's calculations, is largely unknown outside of Joe Goodman's brain).

What's unknown at this point is whether Pathfinder versions (or any other system) of Dungeon Crawl Classics, will bring in enough paying customers independent of the already existing 4E customer base for DCC.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 5, 2010)

I have no doubt that 4e D&D is the top dog with the lion's share of the market, and nobody else can get close. The problem is, most 4e players aren't buying 3PP 4e products for a variety of reasons from they can't use them with the DDI, to they have no respect for the quality of 3PPs based on their actual experiences or (more likely) misconceived perceptions based on the days of the d20/OGL glut. 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the majority of people buying 3PP products right now are doing so for something other than 4e. 

Look at Adamant Entertainment - they aren't really releasing anything for 4e, d20 Modern, or True20 anymore. They've found Savage Worlds and Pathfinder. 

Ultimately, 3PPs have to follow the money.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 5, 2010)

One easy way to "test" out the market, would be for Goodman to release the next DCC as a low level (ie. levels 1 to 3) inexpensive module (ie. maybe a $6 or $7 module with 64 pages or more) in two different versions:  4E and Pathfinder.

The pattern of sales and backorders will probably give a good idea as to how popular a Pathfinder version will be, relative to its 4E version.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 5, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Stuff




I agree with Windjammer here that a few single line reference to the type of monster and page number of the MM book of the system would likely be best.


----------



## joela (Jan 5, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> I agree with Windjammer here that a few single line reference to the type of monster and page number of the MM book of the system would likely be best.




Don't know if that is allowed under The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game compatibility license. Per the license:
_
*5. Compatibility*

In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Standalone game systems are in no event authorized hereunder.

You agree to use your best efforts to ensure that the licensed products are fully compatible with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as published in August, 2009. Your products may additionally be compatible with other systems.

*If you wish to reference sections of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game or supplemental products in your product, you may do so in the following form:

    See the "Elf Racial Traits" section in Chapter 3 of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

You may not use page numbers, as they may change in licensed translations and in subsequent printings. *The list of products you may reference is set out in Exhibit B, which Paizo may update at any time. You may not reference any Paizo products that are not listed in Exhibit B without express written permission._

*Bold italics* are mine.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Not according to Chris Sims.
> 
> When he was laid off from WotC last month, he posted here that there was D&D - and nothing else is even close.
> 
> Pathfinder should have no significant impact if what he says is valid.



That only applies if you are WotC.  
I am certain that NOTHING comes CLOSE to D&D.  
I also wouldn't be surprised if non-Paizo Pathfinder product sales rival non-wotc D&D sales.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I also wouldn't be surprised if non-Paizo Pathfinder product sales rival non-wotc D&D sales.




This is probably the main thing that Joseph Goodman is trying to figuring out, and determining which 3PP area is better sales wise to his company in the longer term.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 5, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> I remember hearing about ye old Razor Coast but how's it actually working?
> 
> Anyone using it? How's the various systems working on it?
> 
> ...




Last I read from Nick from what he has said. My guess is it is past layout and waiting on the final 2 maps and then headed to final edit and then finally to print. That seems to be where it is current based on recent comments by Nick.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 5, 2010)

joela said:


> Don't know if that is allowed under The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game compatibility license. Per the license:
> _
> *5. Compatibility*
> 
> ...




Yeah not saying GG can do it, only saying I agree that would be the best way to do a multi system adventure I think. I am not convinced it would work but I do think that would be the best way to do it.

Though it might be best to do a cheap adventure for the 3 main groups and see how sales are after hyping them. A lose leader of sorts. High quality to show off what GG can do and then sell it for cost, maybe as a PoD. Then see where the sales numbers are. A Pathfinder/old DnD multi adventure would be fairly easy to do i think. More so than adding in 4e which is more different game mechanic wise IMHO.

But guess will see, I am curious how this will shake it's self out and very curious WHY Goodman is considering this.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 5, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> I have no doubt that 4e D&D is the top dog with the lion's share of the market, and nobody else can get close. The problem is, most 4e players aren't buying 3PP 4e products for a variety of reasons from they can't use them with the DDI, to they have no respect for the quality of 3PPs based on their actual experiences or (more likely) misconceived perceptions based on the days of the d20/OGL glut.




But this isn't what Joe Goodman said just a few months ago.  Sales of his 4e products were GREAT - remember?



jaerdaph said:


> It wouldn't surprise me at all if the majority of people buying 3PP products right now are doing so for something other than 4e.




This wouldn't surprise me either - but Goodman said differently just a few months ago - and he knows much better than any of us here.  I asked what's changed and ggroy said Pathfinder.  

My point is that I doubt Pathfinder has had any significant effect on 4E players, so why should Goodman want to change now when things were going so well just a few short months ago?

Maybe I misread what he posted, but my sense was that Goodman was full speed ahead for 4E and doing very well.


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2010)

I don't read that he has a problem, I read that he is thinking about an opportunity.

He is an old school fan. Why wouldn't he want to cater to that and expand his business?


----------



## ggroy (Jan 5, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> why should Goodman want to change now when things were going so well just a few short months ago?




In principle he could have been exaggerating?

More likely he was possibly rationalizing his own previous decisions.  It's human nature to want to rationalize one's own decisions, regardless of how good or bad they were in the end.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Jan 5, 2010)

I have commented on this on this topic at my blog, *In the Mind of Mad Man*, due to the fact that I didn't think it appropriate to use that type of graphic language on this forum.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 5, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> My point is that I doubt Pathfinder has had any significant effect on 4E players, so why should Goodman want to change now when things were going so well just a few short months ago?
> 
> Maybe I misread what he posted, but my sense was that Goodman was full speed ahead for 4E and doing very well.





Again why does wanting to reach a wider audience = your primary business failing?

It's now the start of a new year/quarter, and perhaps he's just looking into what else his business can do- Not inspired by lack of sales, but inspired by a large group of people who might also be a source of revenue.

In fact, you can look at it the other way... Sales of the DCC have been so good, that he's looking for ways to invest that extra income back into his company, and ultimately make even more money.

There's a large group of people who wants 4e DCCs. There might be a large group of people who want Pathfinder DCCs. 

Why not sell to both of them and just have an even larger group of customers who want DCCs?


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 6, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> But this isn't what Joe Goodman said just a few months ago.  Sales of his 4e products were GREAT - remember?




I took his comments a few months ago as being almost Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf -esque.







'Of course my 4e sales are going strong! They're wonderful! Why would you think otherwise?'



But my perception could be wrong, and he might just be hedging his bets or trying to expand his sales base. The baghdad bob level of assurance against all odds was how I took it though.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 6, 2010)

lmpjr007 said:


> I have commented on this on this topic at my blog, *In the Mind of Mad Man*, due to the fact that I didn't think it appropriate to use that type of graphic language on this forum.




I'm curious as to why you choose to use so strong a language towards another publisher and competitor?

Is there a backstory that would put your strong reaction in some kind of perspective? If not, then I'll just say that I find your comments ill-considered and uncalled for.

/M


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 6, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Again why does wanting to reach a wider audience = your primary business failing?




It certainly does not!  But if this were the case, why not do this much, much earlier?  Why NOW as opposed to those many months ago when the new GSL was finalized?

Goodman had an opportunity to be on board with Pathfinder when it released.  Instead he chose to post about how great 4E was and how the 3.5-based system is a "clunker".  Now suddenlty the tune seems to be changing.  Something is not adding up....


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> It certainly does not!  But if this were the case, why not do this much, much earlier?  Why NOW as opposed to those many months ago when the new GSL was finalized?
> 
> Goodman had an opportunity to be on board with Pathfinder when it released.  Instead he chose to post about how great 4E was and how the 3.5-based system is a "clunker".  Now suddenlty the tune seems to be changing.  Something is not adding up....




Could be anything- perhaps he just wanted to see how well Pathfinder would do first? Or he was waiting for enough in the reinvestment funds, or a new quarter, or more free time... Whatever.  Really only one who knows for sure is Goodman. I just don't see where the need for "alarm" is coming from.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 6, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Could be anything- perhaps he just wanted to see how well Pathfinder would do first? Or he was waiting for enough in the reinvestment funds, or a new quarter, or more free time... Whatever.  Really only one who knows for sure is Goodman. I just don't see where the need for "alarm" is coming from.




For me, it's not so much alarm as it is trying to understand the market.  So much is closed to the consumer that all we can do is speculate - and probably badly.

However, what I saw a few months ago were two publishers looking at the environment and drawing substantially different conclusions.  On one side there was Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games saying that print 4E by a 3pp was not viable, while Joe Goodman claimed the opposite was true - and seemed to imply (and maybe I misread) that 3pps who didn't think the 4E market was viable didn't understand how to do business in the current environment.  

Now it seems by Joe Goodman's post (and you're right, I may be completely misinterpreting) that in a very short time the 3pp 4E market is no longer as viable on its own.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 6, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> that in a very short time the 3pp 4E market is no longer as viable on its own.




I wonder what constitutes "a short time" in the rpg publishing field? I remember people talking about 3e products being viable for 3 months from publication, and after that they are basically dead.

So 3 months is a lifetime for a product, and Goodman posted his thoughts over 6 months ago.

To me, running a web agency, six months is long enough to bring major changes in the business landscape around me, enough for new developments to boost our profits or if worse came to worse, 6 months is enough to sink my company two times over if business stopped rolling in.

So from my perspective, this doesn't come head over heels after the #4e is doing fine", but quite a long time after. A time where we have had several factors changing the rpg landscape, Pathfinder being one, the success of the DDI being another, and the continual economic downturn being a third.

/M


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2010)

Maggan said:


> I wonder what constitutes "a short time" in the rpg publishing field? I remember people talking about 3e products being viable for 3 months from publication, and after that they are basically dead.
> 
> So 3 months is a lifetime for a product, and Goodman posted his thoughts over 6 months ago.



I don't think he was talking about individual products, but the marketplace itself.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 6, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I don't think he was talking about individual products, but the marketplace itself.




That's how I interpret it as well. Products may still have a three month life span, but the amount of money you make over three months now than over three months back then is less. And getting to the point of three months with less return has come a lot quicker since the release of 4e than it did in the 3e  boom days.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2010)

Keep in mind that even when Goodman was talking about how great his 4E sales were, he was also adding caveats with comments like :"Is 4E doing as well as 3E sales in 2001? Definitely not. That was the high point in a generation."

Nothing he has said now is a smoking gun that he is not making money on 4E.  To the contrary, if he was losing money he would probably be moving on.

But to claim he is simply looking to expand seems a really radical reading of his comments as well.  Compared to a baseline of "definitely not" 3E he has moved on to draw a trend over time of fracturing and loss of solid foundation.  "What's a module publisher to do?" has a clear "I need solutions" tone to it, not an "How do I reinvest all this gravy" tone.

Honestly, I don't think the alternate stats solution will turn out to be viable.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But I just don't see the profit justifying the effort.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 6, 2010)

Scribble said:


> There's a large group of people who wants 4e DCCs. There might be a large group of people who want Pathfinder DCCs.
> 
> Why not sell to both of them and just have an even larger group of customers who want DCCs?




This.

Not this:



> _You want to sell chocolate AND strawberry ice cream?! For shame, good sir! For shame!_


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2010)

I've said it before.  None of the features of 4E make it a good fit for 3PPs.  
Easier to DM.  Minimized prep time.  Casual player appeal.  The math works.
Etc etc etc

If you want simple and quick, then a stack of books with wotc on the cover isn't going to appeal, and some other guys ideas will lag well behind wotc.  

None of that means that 4E is in any way not a super awesome fun game to play.  It is a super awesome fun game to play that also sucks for establishing a strong 3PP marketplace.  And no, the fact that YOU love 3PP stuff for your 4E game does not change that end result.

Goodman makes really good ready to run adventures.  And that fits right into the wheelhouse of 4E appeal.  If anyone can survive in that sparse environment, its Joseph.  He got a lot of ranks in Survival and Favored Terrain: GSL Marketplace.


----------



## keterys (Jan 6, 2010)

It'd be an interesting experiment to try on one book. With print on demand and creative publishing, you could even set it up so all the stat sheets could be printed or substituted with a little work.

I don't understand why so many people think a 4e encounter couldn't turn into a 3e (or whatever) encounter. There are hurdles going the other way, in terms of needing areas of a certain size and a minimum number of combatants, but you could always play 3e (or 2e or 1e etc) with several combatants at once. Even at 1st level, having a fight with six goblins was extraordinarily viable.

I suspect that if folks are willing to not worry about specific feats and specific spells on monsters (I know I am, but can't speak for others), you could even translate many statblocks wholesale without too much effort. Basically at certain tier gaps you'd need to make sure you dealt with certain problems - ie, like flying PCs happen earlier on in 3e, short range teleports earlier in 4e (though only by a couple levels), and for higher level adventures you'd need to put different thought into dealing with divinations and such. 

But eh, doesn't sound too bad for most modules.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Jan 6, 2010)

Maggan said:


> I'm curious as to why you choose to use so strong a language towards another publisher and competitor?
> 
> Is there a backstory that would put your strong reaction in some kind of perspective? If not, then I'll just say that I find your comments ill-considered and uncalled for./M



Sorry but I call them like I see them. He made several commments that were not just false, but outright lies which I pointed out.


----------



## keterys (Jan 6, 2010)

I'm pretty willing to believe that if he said he was making money with 4e, that he was making money with 4e. Just like I'm willing to believe Clark that he didn't think he'd make enough money with 4e.

It's interesting that you're leaping to calling him a bald-faced liar, and sidestepping the board rules on language and conduct by just linking to your post elsewhere. You're a professional (RPG maker). Be professional (attitude).


----------



## aboyd (Jan 6, 2010)

As a few observant people might have noticed, I'm pretty much uninterested in 4E and quite a big 3E purist.  I'm still actively buying up 3.5 edition products on Drive Thru RPG.  So I understand, Louis, that you could be pissed by Goodman's about-face.  I'm on the OGL side of the equation.  However, wouldn't it be better to take an "I told you so" attitude than a "FOAD" attitude?  Let Goodman come back into the fold.  If he does well, great, more viability for 3.5, Pathfinder, and the rest.  If he compromises so much that his output is crap, well, then let him suffer the same fate as other 3PP failures.

I'd really want to judge him based upon product.  I liked his 3.5 edition modules, so I bought them.  I had no interest in his 4th edition modules, so I did not buy them.  If he makes more 3.5 edition modules, I will buy or not based solely upon appeal.

Of course, if you're angry with him because you feel that his earlier comments actively undermined your market and cost you dollars, then I would say that such anger is very understandable.  However, I didn't really get that from your blog entry.  If you're just pissed that he hit you in the pocket book, maybe say that.

Now one last thing:



			
				Louis said:
			
		

> Goodman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't understand this bit of your blog.  Goodman seems to be saying, "I stuck with 4th edition."  You seem to reply, "No, you _stuck_ with 4th edition!"  I don't get it.

If I say "The sky is blue," and you reply, "No, it's blue," then it sounds like you're disagreeing, but you're not.

Maybe you can help me understand the nuance you were going for?


----------



## darjr (Jan 6, 2010)

lmpjr007 said:


> Sorry but I call them like I see them. He made several commments that were not just false, but outright lies which I pointed out.




Uh... really?!?!

Joe Goodman seems like such a great guy. What did he do to deserve this?


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 6, 2010)

aboyd said:


> I don't understand this bit of your blog.  Goodman seems to be saying, "I stuck with 4th edition."  You seem to reply, "No, you _stuck_ with 4th edition!"  I don't get it.
> 
> If I say "The sky is blue," and you reply, "No, it's blue," then it sounds like you're disagreeing, but you're not.




Yeah, I noticed that too in a couple spots and was a little confused as well...


----------



## Snoweel (Jan 6, 2010)

lmpjr007 said:


> I didn't think it appropriate to use that type of graphic language on this forum.




No that should be fine to post here.


----------



## MadLordOfMilk (Jan 6, 2010)

Assuming it wouldn't horribly raise the printing costs, I'd prefer having an appendix at the back for converting to various RPG systems, possibly with perforated edges to be able to have the stat blocks right there while the adventure is open.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 6, 2010)

lmpjr007 said:


> Sorry but I call them like I see them. He made several commments that were not just false, but outright lies which I pointed out.




FWIW, he has yet to be banned from RPGnow ...  

RPGnet Forums - View Single Post - [Industry News] LPJ Design gets booted from RPGnow


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 6, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Nothing he has said now is a smoking gun that he is not making money on 4E.  To the contrary, if he was losing money he would probably be moving on.




Possibly.  But given his habit of making lofty and condescending statements about the industry, he has a lot of face to save.

Or maybe we should just go with it,


			
				Joe Goodman said:
			
		

> Because Joe Goodman says so, and I know more about game stores than you do.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 6, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Possibly.  But given his habit of making lofty and condescending statements about the industry, he has a lot of face to save.




Some people have redeemed themselves after crashing and burning in a spectacular manner, such as Richard Nixon.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 6, 2010)

lmpjr007 said:


> Sorry but I call them like I see them. He made several commments that were not just false, but outright lies which I pointed out.




Nope, it is you who clearly didn't understand his post, and instead you made yourself look like a fool.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Some people have redeemed themselves after crashing and burning in a spectacular manner, such as Richard Nixon.






I think this is more of a WTF than Louis Porter disagreeing with Joseph Goodman by agreeing with him!


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 6, 2010)

I suggest producing two runs for an adventure a 3.5 or pathfinder one and a 4e one. Include a downloadable doc for the old skoolers - I'm not sure if they have internet access, I believe they all live in caves near the coast eating raw fish and the like, and Diagio is their king.

Keep the two version nearly identical except for stat'ing and possibly encounter numbers (moar Minions for the 4e one) - just to keep the internet flame wars down. 

Not sure if it is economically viable, but you try a few floaters and see what sticks. Oh and you can compete the two, just have a counter on your website. The two camps are very competitive, just look at the open design when the system is up for grabs ...

Just my two centrios; all my dealings with Joe have been very positive, he is a straight shooter in my books.


----------



## dm4hire (Jan 6, 2010)

An approach that might work would be to run the module stripped of all encounters, referencing a second encounter booklet that is designed for the specific system, be it 4e, Pathfinder, or whatever.  Then sell the PDF with each system encounter book at a fixed price that will attract customers, but also offer it at a marked up price (or bargain price) that includes the other systems.  The print version should be sold so that it includes all systems to reduce printing costs or done POD as suggested (however this limits FLGS sales).

As for design of the encounter book, I would try to focus each encounter so that they cover a one or two page spread for easier referencing, cutting out page turning.  The arrangement would be similar to late 3e and current 4e encounters.  I personally don’t think it will work, but if it is going to work then layout will be the key to its success and survivability.


----------



## Failed Saving Throw (Jan 6, 2010)

I would stick to doing 4E modules, since that's what most people play. As a trial balloon, Goodman could also try putting out adventures for other systems and see what happens.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 6, 2010)

Failed Saving Throw said:


> I would stick to doing 4E modules, since that's what most people play.




Is it?  That's a perennial question, and really the only reason that any prognostication on the RPG marketing lasts more than a few posts.

Goodman himself doesn't believe 4E has sold as well as 3E did, comparatively, and the number of players is uncertain.  It begs the question: why would he even consider shifting from 4E if it's the dog's bollocks?

Any speculation on the popularity of a game or system is just that: speculation.


----------



## Snoweel (Jan 6, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Any speculation on the popularity of a game or system is just that: speculation.




This is quite telling.

I mean, it's not professional quality statistical analysis but it does represent over 7000 D&D-related responses.

Edit: I refer to the right hand sidebar showing campaigns by system.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Jan 6, 2010)

Filcher said:


> FWIW, he has yet to be banned from RPGnow ...
> 
> RPGnet Forums - View Single Post - [Industry News] LPJ Design gets booted from RPGnow



Yes I was banned AND brought back in 2006.  You can find my product there.  Right next to Goodman Games.  Remember tell the WHOLE story not just the parts you like.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 6, 2010)

Snoweel said:


> This is quite telling.
> 
> I mean, it's not professional quality statistical analysis but it does represent over 7000 D&D-related responses.




It's telling of the demographic of people who use Obsidian Portal to run online games. Not generalisable, by any measure.

WotC estimates, what is it, a million or more players worldwide?  I very much doubt that link gives a true estimate of what's being played where by whom.

Note, as well, that 4E is well outnumbered by the other systems on that site, so if Goodman is planning to market to other editions, that source would indicate that he'd be smart to cater to many other editions and variants.


----------



## Jason Anderson (Jan 6, 2010)

lmpjr007 said:


> Yes I was banned AND brought back in 2006.  You can find my product there.



Not quite - you were a publisher on DTRPG, and when they merged with RPGNow the choice was made to let you remain and be a part of the new company. Saying you were brought back isn't accurate.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 6, 2010)

Failed Saving Throw said:


> I would stick to doing 4E modules, since that's what most people play.




But there's not necessarily a correlation between people who play 4e and people who buy adventures from third party publishers.

And in this case, I should point out, we're talking about adventures with an "old school feel." 

When I'm feeling nostalgic for that "old school feel," 4th Edition is not on my list. In many ways the design assumptions (and certainly the marketing) of 4th Edition is openly hostile to old school gamers, throwing yet another obstacle in Goodman's path. Goodman built an awesome, enviable brand on the goodwill of old school gamers.

I would still bet my money on Goodman to pull it off again, but I'm not sure he's getting full return on the DCC brand essence with 4e.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2010)

Folks,

General note for several of you - watch your manners.  

We ask you not to refer to real-world politics.  We ask you to be polite, and comport yourselves in a mature manner.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2010)

Snoweel said:


> No that should be fine to post here.




Actually, it would likely have been seen as problematic.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 6, 2010)

lmpjr007 said:


> Sorry but I call them like I see them. He made several commments that were not just false, but outright lies which I pointed out.




I don't find you calling out any lies in the post. It's a rant, you use the words "this is true" several times, then challenges that Goodman "remains the only "d20 company" still primarily supporting WotC D&D” which I agree is an issue that could be debated but which is IMO "marketing speak" more than a lie, and then you dispute what systems DCC customers are playing.

So from my reading, you haven't actually pointed anything out at all.

/M


----------



## jbear (Jan 6, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> The old school movement seems more open and inviting to other publishers but I don't know if it has the purchasing power to make such a venture worthwhile. Most of those on the small publishing side that I tend to read seem to indicate a rather smallish scale of things but I have no insider information on this. What was it.... Stonehell dungeon where the author was mentioning something like 500 units solid and I think that included PDF?
> 
> Pathfinder... I wouldn't qualify that as 'old school' as much as the d20 branch.
> 
> If 4e isn't cutting it and they suspect that Pathfinder would... then Pathfinder is the way to go. In addition, there would be less hassel in the transformation of product from 3.5 to old school 1st ed.  Might make it a more viable method, espeically for convention materials.



I don't think what he is contemplating has anything to do with 4e 'cutting it' or not.

It seems like a business man who is trying to find ways to tap into the entire fragmented rpg market. If your products can interest players across many systems all the better.

Sounds like a smart business move. fullstop.


----------



## Snoweel (Jan 6, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> It's telling of the demographic of people who use Obsidian Portal to run online games. Not generalisable, by any measure.




You don't find it interesting?



> _WotC estimates, what is it, a million or more players worldwide?  I very much doubt that link gives a true estimate of what's being played where by whom._




Did the Obsidian Portal figures match your expectations?



> _Note, as well, that 4E is well outnumbered by the other systems on that site_




4e is just under half.



> _so if Goodman is planning to market to other editions, that source would indicate that he'd be smart to cater to many other editions and variants._




Definitely. But of the 10 000+ campaigns on the site, 111 systems are represented.

Of those, 13 systems boast 100+ campaigns:

*D&D 4e* 4864
*D&D 3.x* 2518 (this includes 3.0, 3.5 and d20)
*Other D&D* 189 (OD&D and AD&D)
*Pathfinder* 388
*World of Darkness* 227
*Star Wars Saga* 200
*GURPS* 156
*Savage Worlds* 139
*d20 Modern* 126
*Shadowrun* 124
*Dark Heresy* 100


----------



## Snoweel (Jan 6, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Actually, it would likely have been seen as problematic.




Hence the sarcasm.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2010)

Snoweel said:


> Hence the sarcasm.




Yes, but the unfortunate truth is that plain text statements typically lack the cues that allow one to clearly tell the difference between sarcasm, straight talk, and someone trying to get you to do something you oughtn't.  

Neither here nor there, as far as the topic at hand is concerned, though.


----------



## Snoweel (Jan 6, 2010)

Umbran said:


> and someone trying to get you to do something you oughtn't.




I'm outraged you would even consider this to be my intent. 

(And I think emoticons detract from any post.)


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 6, 2010)

This is the part where I humbly request we bring back the *rolls eyes* smiley.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2010)

Snoweel said:


> I'm outraged you would even consider this to be my intent.




Back to the OP's topic, please.


----------



## malkav666 (Jan 6, 2010)

I would give Goodman DCC's a shot if they were written for 3.x or pathfinder. My group had played through a couple when they were being made for 3.x and found them to be enjoyable. we never tried any of the 4e ones as we were finished with the system based on its own merits and flaws before we really got a chance to start exploring 3pp material.

I would suggest to Goodman to try and release a new single module for 3.x Pathfinder (or whatever system you are thinking of trying) and see how well it sells. If it meets the needs of your company financially then do more of them, if not then stick with whats working now.

But thats just my own opinion, and it is the opinion of a gamer, as opposed to some of the other opinions posted by other members of the industry in this thread.

love,
malkav


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 6, 2010)

Mark said:


> Will you be translating this one, too?




Memories...

http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2009/06/really-funny-comment-on-joe-goodmans.htmlhttp://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/270073-goodman-games-solicits-input.html


----------



## lmpjr007 (Jan 7, 2010)

joethelawyer said:


> Memories...
> 
> Joethelawyer's Wondrous Imaginings: Really Funny Comment on Joe Goodman's Posthttp://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/270073-goodman-games-solicits-input.html



Well I guess Mr. Goodman said it best.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 7, 2010)

Snoweel said:


> You don't find it interesting?





Snoweel said:


> Did the Obsidian Portal figures match your expectations?



It's interesting, but unreliable, and I have no expectations of Obsidian Portal, so that's not really relevant.

It's established that the vast majority of gamers don't take their gaming online, so Obsidian Portal only represents a particular demographic, and we don't know what other features correlate with that which would skew the representation of games on the site.

For all we know, playing 4E may have a strong positive correlation with online activity (or knowing OP even exists), in which case Obsidian Portal is actively selective of 4E over other systems.  And how many of those campaigns are inactive or duplicates?

Frankly, I'd be surprised if 4E isn't the single most popular game system at the moment, but even at Obsidian Portal, others D&Ds make up over 40% of the D&D campaigns, which means the true numbers could well be much, much closer.


----------



## keterys (Jan 7, 2010)

Obsidian Portal was also active before 4e came out, which is another wrinkle.

That said, it is very interesting to see that list.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 7, 2010)

Wait, what's Obsidian Portal? Do you mean Obsidian Twilight? 

Crazy rants aside (because "why should non-publisher gamers be the only ones allowed to let loose every once in awhile with the nerd rage?" is my philosophy) Obsidian Twilight has been looking kind of cool...

Edit: Nevermind - figured it out.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 7, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> (because "why should non-publisher gamers be the only ones allowed to let loose every once in awhile with the nerd rage?" is my philosophy)




Sure ... and publishers as well as non-publishers should be prepared to be called on their nerd rage rants, that's my philosophy.

/M


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 7, 2010)

I have posted earlier, but that was before I remembered which modules GG has published for 4e earlier. I have browsed through 4-5 of them and read 1 of them and really, to me they were uninspiring. 

I am running a straight forward hack-and-slash game on tuesdays so dungeon crawls should have been a perfect match. I found the encounters boring, the story really thin and I felt I could do a better job creating random encounters from the MM and rolling a dice to see what terrain they should be set in. Having 5 of the same monster type in a combat with no special terrain features is something I didn't even do while play testing 4e!

The one module I read through was from the "master" module series which had an ok story, but this time it looked much too complex without getting anything back for it. Complexity can be good if it is because of added depth and character, but this time it just looked like complexity for the sake of complexity. The encounters still looked boring. So to me this module series is one step forward (story is better), one step back (complexity) and nothing new about the encounters.

I think you might do better if you used the new encounter format with a map, tactics and monster stats right where you can see them. For a dungeon crawl it's the perfect format.

WotBS is the perfect example of a module series adding depth without any unneccesary complexity. Encounters are well designed and either ties in to the story, gives clues or choices the characters has to make, tying them npc's and the story. You could do well looking at the series to get some input.

GG might have done something about their modules with Death Dealer - Shadows of Mirahan. I am going to wait for a review, but if it looks good I will buy it.


----------



## Dannager (Jan 7, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Note, as well, that 4E is well outnumbered by the other systems on that site, so if Goodman is planning to market to other editions, that source would indicate that he'd be smart to cater to many other editions and variants.



No, that's the opposite of what it would indicate.

Each different game you cater to is energy and resources expended on your part. Given that it probably takes about as much energy to produce an adventure in any one system as another, the _smart_ thing to do would be to produce adventures for the largest available group of consumers willing to buy your products. Assuming that 4e consumers are willing to buy 3pp adventures (which the chart doesn't indicate either way on), catering to 4e is the smart way to go. If that audience cannot sustain your business model, you can consider expanding to a second game system as long as the effort put into that expansion is outweighed by the gain in business.


----------



## Dannager (Jan 7, 2010)

joethelawyer said:


> Memories...
> 
> Joethelawyer's Wondrous Imaginings: Really Funny Comment on Joe Goodman's Post



This sort of thing really isn't terribly flattering behavior on your part, joethelawyer.


----------



## aboyd (Jan 7, 2010)

Dannager said:


> This sort of thing really isn't terribly flattering behavior on your part, joethelawyer.



Leonard: Sheldon, don't make that noise, it's disrespectful.

Sheldon: _I should hope so, it was a snort of derision!_


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 7, 2010)

joethelawyer said:


> Memories...
> 
> Joethelawyer's Wondrous Imaginings: Really Funny Comment on Joe Goodman's Posthttp://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/270073-goodman-games-solicits-input.html




Joe, this is neither big nor clever. If the mods have deleted it, linking to it in this way is thumbing your nose at them.

Welcome to a six day ban


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 7, 2010)

Dannager said:


> No, that's the opposite of what it would indicate.
> 
> Each different game you cater to is energy and resources expended on your part. Given that it probably takes about as much energy to produce an adventure in any one system as another, the _smart_ thing to do would be to produce adventures for the largest available group of consumers willing to buy your products. Assuming that 4e consumers are willing to buy 3pp adventures (which the chart doesn't indicate either way on), catering to 4e is the smart way to go. If that audience cannot sustain your business model, you can consider expanding to a second game system as long as the effort put into that expansion is outweighed by the gain in business.




Except that all those systems except 4E are open.  None of them has a character builder that can't include third-party material, or a DDI that excludes non-WotC publishers.

The most popular game has an audience locked into a stream of products from the chief publisher, with outside publishers discriminated against, while the others are a free for all, and hence a wider market.



Dannager said:


> This sort of thing really isn't terribly flattering behavior on your part, joethelawyer.




I found it as funny and accurate as it was the first time round.  There's nothing abusive in it, and it pretty much sums up the tone that many of us perceived in Goodman's original post.

Is Joe Goodman above criticism now?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 7, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Assuming that 4e consumers are willing to buy 3pp adventures (which the chart doesn't indicate either way on), catering to 4e is the smart way to go.




That's the way Goodman Games went. 

Now what?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 7, 2010)

Didn't joethelawyer leave ENWorld of his own volition, and make quite a big deal about it as well? Or am I thinking of someone else?


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 7, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Sure ... and publishers as well as non-publishers should be prepared to be called on their nerd rage rants, that's my philosophy.




Absolutely!


----------



## Snoweel (Jan 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Didn't joethelawyer leave ENWorld of his own volition, and make quite a big deal about it as well? Or am I thinking of someone else?




I think that was joethecabdriver.


----------



## DaveyJones (Jan 7, 2010)

Snoweel said:


> I think that was joethecabdriver.




i miss dave trampier.

mostly i just miss wormy.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 7, 2010)

Dannager said:


> No, that's the opposite of what it would indicate.
> 
> Each different game you cater to is energy and resources expended on your part. Given that it probably takes about as much energy to produce an adventure in any one system as another, the _smart_ thing to do would be to produce adventures for the largest available group of consumers willing to buy your products. Assuming that 4e consumers are willing to buy 3pp adventures (which the chart doesn't indicate either way on), catering to 4e is the smart way to go. If that audience cannot sustain your business model, you can consider expanding to a second game system as long as the effort put into that expansion is outweighed by the gain in business.



Do you have any sense of how many Paizo AP units have been sold to 4E fans as a result of your conversions?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 7, 2010)

*Windjammer*, you've been around for over a year, but have a low postcount, so you get a warning (and the rest of the tread gets a reminder):

The Rules of EN World are very clear on one point - if you have a problem with moderation TAKE IT TO E-MAIL or PM.  Do not, under any circumstances, start arguing with a mod in-thread over it.  Doing so is a fast route to a vacation from the site.  The addresses of all the mods are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta Forum.


----------



## DaveyJones (Jan 7, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Wait, what's Obsidian Portal? Do you mean Obsidian Twilight?
> 
> Crazy rants aside (because "why should non-publisher gamers be the only ones allowed to let loose every once in awhile with the nerd rage?" is my philosophy) Obsidian Twilight has been looking kind of cool...
> 
> Edit: Nevermind - figured it out.




Obsidian Portal was a nominee and winner from the ENnies last year. it is a gaming site kinda along the lines of wiki. check them out.


----------



## Dannager (Jan 7, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Except that all those systems except 4E are open.  None of them has a character builder that can't include third-party material, or a DDI that excludes non-WotC publishers.
> 
> The most popular game has an audience locked into a stream of products from the chief publisher, with outside publishers discriminated against, while the others are a free for all, and hence a wider market.



Except we're talking about adventures, not player rules supplements. None of WotC's digital products discriminate against 3rd party adventures, and if you're worried about the Monster Builder encroaching on your territory, simply stat up your monsters in the Monster Builder and release them as a pack of files! Now, instead of having to deal with people avoiding your product because of D&D Insider offerings, you can now tout its integration with D&D Insider as a selling point!


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Didn't joethelawyer leave ENWorld of his own volition, and make quite a big deal about it as well?




Yep. Because site staffers are all hypocrites with no manhood.


----------



## Dannager (Jan 7, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Do you have any sense of how many Paizo AP units have been sold to 4E fans as a result of your conversions?



I don't. There have been thousands of downloads of my conversion documents so far, but I can't begin to predict how many of those people have actually run games from them, much less how many people went out and bought the original adventures after seeing my conversions.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jan 7, 2010)

I have and love the two Points of Light books.

I am very much looking forward to the Dungeon Alphabet book.

I posted my conversion of DCC #11 to B/X D&D right here.

Anyone who looks at that conversion I did will see I'm pretty nit-picky with my conversions.  I don't like to eyeball it.  For that reason, I'd prefer a generic sort of stat block (example:  "3 orcs, chain mail, spears") over a particular system.  I particularly sensitive about how much of a product I'm purchasing is composed of stat blocks of a system I don't use.  Some 3.x products were quite literally 50% useless (to me) stat block.

If you Goodman to publish adventures with the same sort of generic notations as found in the PoL series, I'd certainly purchase them.


----------



## Wayside (Jan 7, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Except that all those systems except 4E are open.  None of them has a character builder that can't include third-party material, or a DDI that excludes non-WotC publishers.



None of them has a Character Builder or a DDI at all.


----------



## Sticknia (Jan 7, 2010)

Considering what I have seen of 4e, I'm guessing that a 4e native publishing would make the most sense. Primarily because of how deviated from older editions it is.
Then make available 3.5, Pathfinder, and a few other primary's and call it good.
Obviously this is a lot harder than it sounds, but 4e is a marketing master piece and if you are going to make money on an RPG, go with the one designed to make money.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 8, 2010)

Sticknia said:


> but 4e is a marketing master piece




*blink* Wha? Marketing masterpiece? The rollout was a case study in what not to do and how to cheese off large segments of your audience, the whole Virtual Tabletop debacle, the delayed and delayed and then clunker of a GSL, their forum drama, most 3PP largely dropping out, etc. Fragmenting the marketplace isn't exactly a resounding marketing success.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> *blink* Wha? Marketing masterpiece? The rollout was a case study in what not to do and how to cheese off large segments of your audience, the whole Virtual Tabletop debacle, the delayed and delayed and then clunker of a GSL, their forum drama, most 3PP largely dropping out, etc. Fragmenting the marketplace isn't exactly a resounding marketing success.



While this is not always the case, when people hold diametrically opposed viewpoints, the truth often lies somewhere in the middle.

(I might also say that the people they cheesed off were not actually their audience, though.)


----------



## Chrono22 (Jan 8, 2010)

Wayside said:


> None of them has a Character Builder or a DDI at all.



Actually they do. It's just not called DDI. It's called DM tools, redblade, mythweavers, etc. Those are also open btw.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> (I might also say that the people they cheesed off were not actually their audience, though.)



Not once Wotc was done firing them.  Right?


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 8, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Except we're talking about adventures, not player rules supplements. None of WotC's digital products discriminate against 3rd party adventures, and if you're worried about the Monster Builder encroaching on your territory, simply stat up your monsters in the Monster Builder and release them as a pack of files! Now, instead of having to deal with people avoiding your product because of D&D Insider offerings, you can now tout its integration with D&D Insider as a selling point!




True, but from a marketing perspective the point still stands.  Subscribers have a steady stream of official material coming straight to their hard drive, which relegates 3P material to a retail ghetto.  The GSL is essentially a lengthy way of saying, "Tsch-yeah, buy a licence and publish if you like, but don't think you're getting any of our market share."

Does the monster builder accept external files?



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> While this is not always the case, when people hold diametrically opposed viewpoints, the truth often lies somewhere in the middle.




Or, as Richard Dawkins said, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."

I wasn't paying a lot of attention during the market implosion, but I do recall that every time I visited ENworld while it was going on, there seemed to be a consensus of, "I love 4E but this corporate jerk-around is terrible".

And, while it's true that the people who laughed loudest at the schemozzle probably weren't the target market, even the true believers thought it was the height of bastardry to try herding the fanbase into a new edition by cancelling PDFs of the old.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Or, as Richard Dawkins said, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."



Thus, the qualification in my post that it is not always the case. I believe in this case that it is the case. Sometimes one side is simply wrong. Sometimes both are, and the truth is in the middle. Recall what they say about the vocal minority.



Hairfoot said:


> I wasn't paying a lot of attention during the market implosion



Okay then.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Okay then.




Of course, if you can link to any sustained defences of the roll-out I'd be forced to reconsider.  If they were there, you'd think would have been as prominent as the criticism, even to an infrequent observer.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Of course, if you can link to any sustained defences of the roll-out I'd be forced to reconsider.  If they were there, you'd think would have been as prominent as the criticism, even to an infrequent observer.



I don't recall any threads being started on the topic, not sure why someone would bother with that. But in most any of the innumerable "Wot$ has fired me as a customer and kicks puppies" threads, you could find people replying "no they didn't, no they don't, stop being melodramatic."

Remember the "They lied to us! They told us they weren't even working on 4th edition!" meme, that was subsequently shown to be based on a quote taken out of context. I did actually start a thread about that one, and some of the complainers did own up and admit they were wrong. But the meme continued even after that.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 8, 2010)

Henrix said:


> So, 4e modules with an old school feel would be just perfect.




If it says "4e" on the cover, I'm not even picking up it to read what it's about at the FLGS . . . just a bad feeling about the whole system at this point.

Even though I don't play OSRIC or C&C, I do check those out to see if the story is super interesting.

While I really want 3.5, or failing that Pathfinder, system neutral is definitely close enough.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't recall any threads being started on the topic, not sure why someone would bother with that.




Really?  When edition wars and campaigns of acrimony were consuming this site, you're not sure why someone would bother starting a thread defending the roll-out?

People will start threads here to ask about a character picking his nose.  If there were no defences of the WotC shaft-a-thon, it sure as heck wasn't because the company was universally admired.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 8, 2010)

MadLordOfMilk said:


> Assuming it wouldn't horribly raise the printing costs, I'd prefer having an appendix at the back for converting to various RPG systems, possibly with perforated edges to be able to have the stat blocks right there while the adventure is open.




I fully agree with this.  But it might be too costly, in which case stat downloads is close enough.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 8, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> I wasn't paying a lot of attention during the market implosion, but I do recall that every time I visited ENworld while it was going on, there seemed to be a consensus of, "I love 4E but this corporate jerk-around is terrible".




It was actually more the opposite. 
*I hate WotC* 
*I hate 4e*
*I haven't bought a WotC product in years because I buy into the Paizteria, but I am still pissed because WotC didn't make the kind of game "I" want to play*

Those were much more common than the *I like 4e but do not like the marketing*.

And as 5E mentioned, no matter how many claims turned out to be gross exaggerations or outright lies, people kept using them. Hell, some are still using them.  But that's not to say that they didn't happen. Far from all were happy with the marketing decisions made by WotC. The problem with calling them blunders is that we do not really have any evidence that it has cost them money. All we know is that D&D is still the biggest baddest and best selling RPG on the market, by light-years. Sure, there are some who claim to have left because of the marketing (like, seriously dude), but how many have WotC gained? Only they know. And they claim 4e is a smashing success, crunching expectations and projections. But, then again, perhaps they are just lying of course, after all, they are WOtC.


----------



## dm4hire (Jan 8, 2010)

My disgruntlement started with the failure to uphold the promise of open beta for 4e and slowly built from there.  I stayed a fence sitter for a year or so, but slowly devolved into a "it's great for a pickup game" mentality then moved on.  I personally believe that if WotC had done the open beta and loosened their grip on the mechanics, which they seem to think are exclusively theirs, the game would be a lot better and there wouldn't be nearly as much schism as we're seeing.  Until 4e the majority of mechanics were still very similar which is why I believe the rift between editions wasn't so noticeable compared to what we're seeing now, that and the internet definitely allows people to be more outspoken about it.

As far as Goodman goes though I still think they can pull if off if done correctly though I don't know if the market will support it.  As has been mentioned a lot of players don't want cross market products.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 8, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> And as 5E mentioned, no matter how many claims turned out to be gross exaggerations or outright lies, people kept using them. Hell, some are still using them.  But that's not to say that they didn't happen. Far from all were happy with the marketing decisions made by WotC. The problem with calling them blunders is that we do not really have any evidence that it has cost them money. All we know is that D&D is still the biggest baddest and best selling RPG on the market, by light-years. Sure, there are some who claim to have left because of the marketing (like, seriously dude), but how many have WotC gained? Only they know. And they claim 4e is a smashing success, crunching expectations and projections. But, then again, perhaps they are just lying of course, after all, they are WOtC.



Just to clarify, you're saying, "case X is probably true, but we don't know.  Y also may have happened, but there's no way of being sure.  Everyone said Z, and also didn't, and are still saying it, but not.  But who cares, because I like a game that definitely maybe possibly certainly in actual fact but not or who knows could be subjectively objectively in my opinion only and that of everyone else is the best ever, if anyone could demonstrate it, but the company marketing it says it is, so it might be."

Phwoosh!  _Goodnight _edition wars!


----------



## Snoweel (Jan 8, 2010)

haakon1 said:


> If it says "4e" on the cover, I'm not even picking up it to read what it's about at the FLGS




Yeah?

Well I'll buy it without even reading the back cover.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> All we know is that D&D is still the biggest baddest and best selling RPG on the market, by light-years.



For one reason: the name

Go to an alternate universe where anyone of a dozen other games is called D&D 4E and THAT would be "the biggest baddest and best selling RPG on the market, by light-years".  (what exactly is the conversion rate between a dollar and a light year?)

The question is: did D&D establish the enduring fan base it COULD have with 4E?  I believe the answer is not at all and it doesn't require any WotC lies 18 months ago to see it that way.

I don't hate wotc.  They just don't produce any products that interest me.
I don't hate 4E.  There are just vastly better games out there.
I'm not pissed at all.  But, why shouldn't I call it like I see it?  Particularly considering that every prediction I made in the first half of 2008 has come true so far.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 8, 2010)

Snoweel said:


> Well I'll buy it without even reading the back cover.




That there is precisely the type of savvy, discerning and informed consumer Hasbro appreciates.  Make it super-size, bro.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> People will start threads here to ask about a character picking his nose.  If there were no defences of the WotC shaft-a-thon, it sure as heck wasn't because the company was universally admired.



You're already forgetting what I wrote. I didn't say that WotC is universally admired. I merely said that their marketing was not the complete and utter train wreck that many make it out to be. It was not perfect - I'm arguing the truth lies in the middle, remember? - but it was not terrible.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> It was actually more the opposite.
> *I hate WotC*
> *I hate 4e*
> *I haven't bought a WotC product in years because I buy into the Paizteria, but I am still pissed because WotC didn't make the kind of game "I" want to play*



Indeed. I still remember posting "I'm cautiously optimistic about 4E" or "Actually, I don't think 4E is actually raping your childhood" and getting called a fanboy, repeatedly. I'm paraphrasing, of course.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You're already forgetting what I wrote. I didn't say that WotC is universally admired. I merely said that their marketing was not the complete and utter train wreck that many make it out to be. It was not perfect - I'm arguing the truth lies in the middle, remember? - but it was not terrible.



I agree completely.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jan 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You're already forgetting what I wrote. I didn't say that WotC is universally admired. I merely said that their marketing was not the complete and utter train wreck that many make it out to be. It was not perfect - I'm arguing the truth lies in the middle, remember? - but it was not terrible.



I have to disagree, objectively.

It's not worth the trouble for either of us to trawl old threads to build a case, but at the height of the fiasco, all but the most rabid 4E-or-bust enthusiasts were facepalming over the botched DDI, the virtual tabletop that wasn't, the abrupt, "all vill play ze new edition, no exceptions", pullling of OOP PDFs etc.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> I have to disagree, objectively.
> 
> It's not worth the trouble for either of us to trawl old threads to build a case, but at the height of the fiasco, all but the most rabid 4E-or-bust enthusiasts were facepalming over the botched DDI, the virtual tabletop that wasn't, the abrupt, "all vill play ze new edition, no exceptions", pullling of OOP PDFs etc.



I agree completely.

Really.

Your examples are accurate.  And Fifth Element's generalization is not incompatible.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 8, 2010)

Is there a time line for troop withdrawal in these Edition Wars? Because it's like 2010 now... 

Interesting that the same, small handful of people on both "sides" who claim elsewhere to be sick of edition wars are right back in the middle of the fray too.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 8, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Is there a time line for troop withdrawal in these Edition Wars? Because it's like 2010 now...
> 
> Interesting that the same, small handful of people on both "sides" who claim elsewhere to be sick of edition wars are right back in the middle of the fray too.





Agreed.

Folks, if you don't like edition wars, here's hint #1 - DON'T PARTICIPATE!


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 8, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> Really.
> 
> Your examples are accurate.  And Fifth Element's generalization is not incompatible.



I agree with this. I'm not talking only about rabid 4E enthusiasts. I think that most people didn't have strong feelings about the marketing one way or the other. Some thought it was great, some terrible, but I'm pretty sure most were "Whatever, let me see the new rules already so I can see if I want to try it."


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 8, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Just to clarify, you're saying, "case X is probably true, but we don't know.  Y also may have happened, but there's no way of being sure.  Everyone said Z, and also didn't, and are still saying it, but not.  But who cares, because I like a game that definitely maybe possibly certainly in actual fact but not or who knows could be subjectively objectively in my opinion only and that of everyone else is the best ever, if anyone could demonstrate it, but the company marketing it says it is, so it might be."
> 
> Phwoosh!  _Goodnight _edition wars!




Haha.. I might not have been clear in my attempt to be non-confrontational. Lets try again.

There was a lot of claims about WotCs lies and marketing. Most seems based on half-truths and lies, but some certainly had merits - like the PDF-gate. 

Yet despite the loud internet-rantings, the prevalent nerdrage, the complaints and the marketing f***-ups, no one has any presented any proof or numbers that contradicts WotC's claim that 4e is doing great.

As to BryonD, sure, 4e is the biggest on the block due to it's name. Just as 3.5, 3.e and 2e was. I do not know if it brings in a lot of new blood. The RPGA has exploded with members, from what I am told, but I live like 3,5k miles away and I have been playing with the same 5-7 people for 20 years, so I am probably not well-placed to talk about bringing new blood to the industry.

E


----------



## Sunderstone (Jan 8, 2010)

A response copy-pasted from Goodmans forums 




> 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.
> 
> ...





hope no one minds the copy/paste thing


----------



## Mark Chance (Jan 8, 2010)

Sunderstone said:


> hope no one minds the copy/paste thing




I don't mind. It might even serve to bring this thread back on-topic ("Goodman solicits input" not "4E sales are doing X").

I have several DCC in PDF and one or two hard copy. I purchased them when Goodman put them on-sale prior to going 4E. I've enjoyed reading the ones I've read. I'm enjoying running the one I'm running.

If Goodman were to support 3.5 or Pathfinder (which, in my mind, are close enough to be interchangeable from a DM's perspective), I'd consider purchasing more DCC, assuming my wife would give me the money.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jan 8, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> I don't mind. It might even serve to bring this thread back on-topic ("Goodman solicits input" not "4E sales are doing X").
> 
> I have several DCC in PDF and one or two hard copy. I purchased them when Goodman put them on-sale prior to going 4E. I've enjoyed reading the ones I've read. I'm enjoying running the one I'm running.
> 
> If Goodman were to support 3.5 or Pathfinder (which, in my mind, are close enough to be interchangeable from a DM's perspective), I'd consider purchasing more DCC, assuming my wife would give me the money.




Im the same with the exception that my other half doesnt mind that I spend on things I like. 

I own about 30 or so DCCs (print) and 2 PDFs (one is an extra PDF copy of CW) myself.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jan 8, 2010)

Sunderstone said:


> Im the same with the exception that my other half doesnt mind that I spend on things I like.




In theory, my wife Katrina doesn't mind either. It's more the lack of money that stands in the way, and since she's responsible for the day-to-day budgeting, it only seems fair I not make things too difficult.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 8, 2010)

DCC RPG eh?

That might be more interesting than all of the back and forth between this and that.

I am surprised he mentioned the Call of Cthulhu stuff though. It seems to have little to do with the whole d20/OGL/4e 'rage'. I assume people think it's something so far out of left field that it's sales don't matter, even though being a 3rd party publisher, they may be as good as the DCC line sales.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jan 8, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> DCC RPG eh?
> 
> That might be more interesting than all of the back and forth between this and that.




Agreed. 
If there was a DCC RPG that was semi-rules light with no heavy emphasis/need for minis (stopping a game to draw a map all the time is my #1 gripe with 3E/PF) would really motivate me to buy, provided future module support was as strong as it was with the 3E/3.5 DCC times.


----------



## Sticknia (Jan 8, 2010)

Well, back to answering the original question.
I think native 4e is going to be your best bet because it's so deviated in it's game play from all of the 3.5/Pathfinder/Clone material.
Because it is so strict in it's form, you'd probably have a better time of relaxing a rule, than trying to tighten it up.
And when I said marketing master piece, what I meant was, WotC managed to get a crap ton of people to A: re-buy the whole game all over again, and B: draw in a new generation of gamers, even if I do think it did it the wrong way.
There is a ton to be said for accessibility.
Once again, even if "I" don't like it.
Which I don't.
Cause I'm old.
And crotchety.
GET OFF MY LAWN!


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 8, 2010)

> 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's neither.  Just give me a believable, interesting milieu to explore, I'll provide my own damn strategy, and the story will write itself.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Jan 8, 2010)

A d20-based, rules light, DCC RPG could be great.  As someone who isn't a fan of Pathfinder or 4th edition, I'd love to see a streamlined, "fixed" version of D&D 3.X that keeps the unified mechanics but ditches a lot of the stuff that grinds high-level play down to a halt and makes high level DMing a chore.


----------



## dm4hire (Jan 8, 2010)

I'd be interested also in seeing what would come out of Goodman in the form of an RPG.  Take your best shot Goodman and if you go open beta the masses will help.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 8, 2010)

cperkins said:


> I'd love to see a streamlined, "fixed" version of D&D 3.X that keeps the unified mechanics but ditches a lot of the stuff that grinds high-level play down to a halt and makes high level DMing a chore.






dm4hire said:


> I'd be interested also in seeing what would come out of Goodman in the form of an RPG.  Take your best shot Goodman and if you go open beta the masses will help.




Maybe I should talk to Joseph, I have a head start on that kind of design...


----------



## ggroy (Jan 8, 2010)

cperkins said:


> A d20-based, rules light, DCC RPG could be great.  As someone who isn't a fan of Pathfinder or 4th edition, I'd love to see a streamlined, "fixed" version of D&D 3.X that keeps the unified mechanics but ditches a lot of the stuff that grinds high-level play down to a halt and makes high level DMing a chore.




Now THIS is something I could get into.  

What always turned me off from 3E/3.5E, was the nightmarish bookkeeping and slow combat at higher levels.

The core rulebook for a possible DCC rpg could be a condensed d20 rules lite thing running 32 to 64 pages at $4 or $5 per copy.  Something like Microlite20 could be a starting point for such a DCC rpg.

If it turns out to be a flop, it probably wouldn't be a major spectacular setback to Goodman.  If it turns out to be a winner, then Goodman has its own system independent of WotC or anybody else.  Then DCC modules can be produced independently of the whims and changes of D&D or Pathfinder.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 8, 2010)

Didn't Goodman Games release an rpg called Eldritch?  I don't have it but it didn't seem to make much of a splash.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 8, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Didn't Goodman Games release an rpg called Eldritch?  I don't have it but it didn't seem to make much of a splash.




Beat me to it. 

Honestly, I think people who want rules light system need to find a rules light system and convert the adventures that they want to play instead of trying to shoe horn D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder into a rules light shoe.


----------



## booboo (Jan 8, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Beat me to it.
> 
> Honestly, I think people who want rules light system need to find a rules light system and convert the adventures that they want to play instead of trying to shoe horn D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder into a rules light shoe.




yup my thoughts also

yes a rules light d20 system would be good to build adventures on
maby a cheap rules book 7-14 $


----------



## Snoweel (Jan 9, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> That there is precisely the type of savvy, discerning and informed consumer Hasbro appreciates.  Make it super-size, bro.




God forbid the industry leader should have a broad appeal.


----------



## BigWeather (Jan 9, 2010)

I'd love to see DCC based on any version of D&D except 4e.  If it is 4e I'll continue to pass on them (loved the 3.x ones).  That's just my preference, of course.

Edit: By this I mean I'd love the default to be non-4e as I'm not keen on having to reference non-4e material as a supplement.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 9, 2010)

Microlite20 is the ultimate "rules light" d20 System D&D. I've even used it to play a lot of Goodman's 3.5e DCCs.


----------



## dm4hire (Jan 9, 2010)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Maybe I should talk to Joseph, I have a head start on that kind of design...




Now that would be awesome.  I've read through Trailblazer and like what I see, but being that it isn't a full on RPG found that as one of its weaknesses.  So my question is are you referring to Trailblazer or have you started to expand the rules with possible thoughts of re-releasing it as a full system?


----------



## scruffygrognard (Jan 9, 2010)

dm4hire said:


> Now that would be awesome.  I've read through Trailblazer and like what I see, but being that it isn't a full on RPG found that as one of its weaknesses.  So my question is are you referring to Trailblazer or have you started to expand the rules with possible thoughts of re-releasing it as a full system?




+1

I bought and like Trailblazer (it's a great resource to drawn ideas from in order to fix 3.5), but I'm looking for something a little more radical/self-contained (but less radical than Microlite d20).

The challenge is to keep what worked well in 3.5 and strip out the bits that bog down the game... all while making it 3.X compatible and true to D&D's roots.

Sounds like a headache!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2010)

dm4hire said:


> Now that would be awesome.  I've read through Trailblazer and like what I see, but being that it isn't a full on RPG found that as one of its weaknesses.  So my question is are you referring to Trailblazer or have you started to expand the rules with possible thoughts of re-releasing it as a full system?




I am expanding Trailblazer to make it more complete, yes; taking it one piece at a time. Completing our _*Monsters*_, *Spells and Magic*, and *Players' Options* books will round out the ruleset.



cperkins said:


> I bought and like Trailblazer (it's a great resource to drawn ideas from in order to fix 3.5), but I'm looking for something a little more radical/self-contained (but less radical than Microlite d20).
> 
> The challenge is to keep what worked well in 3.5 and strip out the bits that bog down the game... all while making it 3.X compatible and true to D&D's roots.




What you've just described is where I thought we were headed! If you have some feedback to help me improve the design, stop by the Bad Axe Games forum and let me know.



> Sounds like a headache!




Are you kidding? Sounds like a _blast_!


----------



## dm4hire (Jan 9, 2010)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I am expanding Trailblazer to make it more complete, yes; taking it one piece at a time. Completing our _*Monsters*_, *Spells and Magic*, and *Players' Options* books will round out the ruleset.




I like the sound of that and not that I don't appreciate all the different books you'll be coming out with, but I hope there will at least be a complete book later on.

Good luck if you do get to talk with Goodman.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2010)

dm4hire said:


> I like the sound of that and not that I don't appreciate all the different books you'll be coming out with, but I hope there will at least be a complete book later on.




That seems likely.



> Good luck if you do get to talk with Goodman.




That seems... less likely.

But if Paizo has cornered the 3pp market on rich, deep content, campaign worlds and adventure paths, I'd be happy to help Goodman corner the market on beer-and-pretzels dungeon raiding.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jan 9, 2010)

tricky

i dont know if a 4e and PF/3.5 should even be written the same way

they do play quite differently before you even get down to minutae of treasure, encounter types and such


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 9, 2010)

I think that two separate lines would be better than trying to convert back and forth - or maybe just give store credit or something to folks doing conversions, rather than putting a staffer on it.

That said - 4e needs the support, going by the two (2) adventures* from WotC that I looked over as possible conversion material. So, keep on making adventures for it. (For what it is worth, I was not overly impressed with their 3.X adventures either, they needed the help back then too. WotC had good rules, but the adventures... not so much. They needed more meat, some gravy, a touch of garlic, or something. The 4e adventures felt much the same - more a series of encounters than a cohesive whole.)

Pathfinder has better adventures than 4e, Paizo does an excellent job of involved adventure paths, but the simple dungeon crawl is less well represented, so there is room there as well.

But I do not think that either stat free or official downloadable conversion is the answer. I wish that the current PDF market was more robust - shortish dungeon crawl adventures appeal to me much more as PDFs than print. Heck, I buy the Paizo adventures as PDFs, and they are not all that short. Lower risk than a print run, but if the PDF market is still depressed, not likely worth it. But I would love to be wrong.

The Auld Grump

*Translation: My experience of WotC 4e adventures is extremely limited, there may be some worth converting, but the two I looked at were cold pancakes without syrup or butter. Nevertheless, I will give you my opinion. 

*EDIT* Two food analogies in a single post? Maybe I should have eaten before typing.


----------



## Wayside (Jan 10, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Actually they do. It's just not called DDI. It's called DM tools, redblade, mythweavers, etc. Those are also open btw.



None of those tools has anywhere near the scope of the Character Builder or the Rules Compendium, unfortunately.


----------



## aboyd (Jan 10, 2010)

HeroForge has "enough" scope (most of the official splatbooks) that it works fine as a near-DDI tool for 3.5 edition (for me).  And PCGen works great for core-only 3.5 games, and is super-friendly for 3PP -- just tons & tons of stuff from third party publishers, most of it official & blessed.  I think Chrono22's point is well-made.


----------



## Wayside (Jan 10, 2010)

aboyd said:


> HeroForge has "enough" scope (most of the official splatbooks) that it works fine as a near-DDI tool for 3.5 edition (for me).  And PCGen works great for core-only 3.5 games, and is super-friendly for 3PP -- just tons & tons of stuff from third party publishers, most of it official & blessed.  I think Chrono22's point is well-made.



I don't. WotC's tools have all the options (including previews and exclusive content), balance fixes, errata, etc. Other tools do not.

I look forward to seeing something similar from Paizo eventually, but _right now_ there's nothing out there comparable to the DDI.


----------



## aboyd (Jan 10, 2010)

The good news is, the rest of the world doesn't seem to need to meet your standards.  I'm just fine with the stuff you don't feel is good enough, and I've got a crowd of people coming with me.  So even if you opt out, there's traction there from the rest of us.


----------



## Mark (Jan 10, 2010)

As far as tools go, legos are better than funnels, IMO.


----------



## Wayside (Jan 11, 2010)

aboyd said:


> The good news is, the rest of the world doesn't seem to need to meet your standards.  I'm just fine with the stuff you don't feel is good enough, and I've got a crowd of people coming with me.  So even if you opt out, there's traction there from the rest of us.



a) I'm sure this is why the Character Builder is seen as indispensable by so many 4e players while those other tools are not seen as indispensable by their respective player bases.

b) It's interesting that you would try to make this personal (my "standards" and "stuff [ I ] don't feel is good enough") or even steer it toward edition warring ("I've got a crowd of people"), seeing as how I neither play 4e nor subscribe to the DDI.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

Wayside said:


> a) I'm sure this is why the Character Builder is seen as indispensable by so many 4e players while those other tools are not seen as indispensable by their respective player bases.






Thought of as indispensible _to play 4E_ says more about 4E than the DDI.  I certainly wouldn't play 4E as I have if the DDI did not exist.


----------



## Dannager (Jan 11, 2010)

Mark said:


> Thought of as indispensible _to play 4E_ says more about 4E than the DDI.  I certainly wouldn't play 4E as I have if the DDI did not exist.



Say what you will, but the reality is that the Character Builder makes creating the character you want to play so much easier than it would otherwise be without the digital aid that a lot of people will be very reluctant to go back to the "old way" of doing things. It really is a phenomenally useful tool. When 5e (or whatever) eventually rolls around, I think it's going to be absolutely critical that WotC provide a comparable Character Builder application from the get-go. People are going to expect it of them.


----------



## Mark (Jan 11, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Say what you will, but the reality is that the Character Builder makes creating the character you want to play so much easier than it would otherwise be without the digital aid (. . .)





And, I agree, "indispensible."




Dannager said:


> (. . .) that a lot of people will be very reluctant to go back to the "old way" of doing things. It really is a phenomenally useful tool.





And, I agree, "to play 4E."




Dannager said:


> When 5e (or whatever) eventually rolls around, I think it's going to be absolutely critical that WotC provide a comparable Character Builder application from the get-go. People are going to expect it of them.





I would go so far as to guess that you probably won't be able to play 5E at all without a computer.


----------

