Goodman Games solicits input

[S'mon]

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]

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]

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
4E > MM 137: 2 goblin warriors + 3 goblin sharpshooters

Encounter 2: Goblin Pyros

3.5 >MM 133: 2 goblin warriors, 1 of whom can can use bardic music and cast [i]daze[/i]
PF > Bestiary 156: 2 goblin warriors, 1 of whom can can use bardic music and cast [i]daze[/i]
4E > MM 137: 4 goblin warriors + 1 goblin hexer

Encounter 3: Die, Dog, Die!

3.5 > MM 133: 5 goblin warriors, 1 of whom rides a dog (MM, 272)
PF > Bestiary 156, 157: 5 goblin warriors + 1 goblin dog
4E > MM 137, 138: 2 goblin warriors + 1 Goblin Underboss (mounted)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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].