Goodman Games solicits input

[Grimstaff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

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.