Goodman Games solicits input

[Filcher]

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:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Joseph

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

 

[jaerdaph]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Will you be translating this one, too?

 

[ggroy]

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.