Goodman Games: Our Efforts Have Been Mischaracterized

Goodman Games' CEO Joseph Goodman made a statement via YouTube over the weekend*. The video itself focused on the content of the controversial upcoming City State of the Invincible Overlord crowdfunding product, but was prefaced by a short introduction by Joseph Goodman, in which he reiterates his company's commitment to inclusivity and diversity and its opposition to bigotry, something which they say they "don't want to be associated with".

Goodman goes on to say that the company's efforts have been "mischaracterized by some folks" but does not go so far as to identify the mischaracterization, so it's not entirely clear what they consider to be untrue other than the "inaccurate" statements made by Bob Bledsaw II of Judges Guild about Goodman Games' plans, which Goodman mentioned last week.

For those who haven't been following this story, it has been covered in the articles Goodman Games Revives Relationship With Anti-Semitic Publisher For New City State Kickstarter, Goodman Games Offers Assurances About Judges Guild Royalties, and Judges Guild Makes Statement About Goodman Controversy. In short, Goodman Games is currently licensing an old property from a company with which it claimed to have cut ties in 2020 after the owner of that company made a number of bigoted comments on social media. Goodman Games has repeatedly said that this move would allow them to provide backers of an old unfulfilled Judges Guild Kickstarter with refunds, but there are many people questioning seeming contradictions in both the timelines involved and in the appropriateness of the whole endeavour.

Despite the backlash, the prospects of the crowdfunding project do not seem to have been harmed. The pre-launch page has over 3,000 followers, and many of the comments under the YouTube videos or on other social media are not only very supportive of the project, but also condemn those who question its appropriateness. In comparison, the original (failed) Judges Guild Kickstarter had only 965 backers.

The video is embedded below, followed by a transcript of the relevant section.

Hi everybody, I'm Joseph Goodman of Goodman Games. We recently announced our City State of the Invincible Overlord crowdfunding project for 5E and DCC RPG.

In the video you're about to see, some of our product development team is going to tell you about what makes the City State so amazing and why we're bringing it back to 5E and DCC audiences nearly 50 years after it was first released. It really is an amazing setting.

But we could have rolled this project out with a lot more clarity. Now, to be clear, Goodman Games absolutely opposes any sort of bigotry, racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia. We don't want to support it. We don't want to be associated with it.

Our well-intentioned effort to launch this project in a way that refunds backers of a former failed Kickstarter from another publisher kind of backfired in the way we announced it. Rest assured, the funds from this crowdfunding will actually fund refunds to backers of the original City State crowdfunding for the Pathfinder edition from 2014.

Unfortunately, our efforts have been—you know, I didn’t clarify them perfectly when we rolled it out—and they've been mischaracterized by some folks since then. But please rest assured, we stand for inclusivity and diversity.

You can read a lot more detail in the post that's linked below, and there's another video linked below where we talk about this in even more detail. But for now, we hope you will sit back and enjoy as some of the product development team tells you about really what makes the City State of the Invincible Overlord so amazing, and why you might want to check it out when it comes to crowdfunding soon.

Thanks, and I'll turn it over to them now.

The statement refers to a post about this that is supposed to be linked below, but at the time of writing no post is linked below the video, so it's not clear if that refers to a new post or one of Goodman Games' previous statements on the issue.

I reached out to Joseph Goodman last week to offer a non-confrontational (although direct and candid) interview in which he could answer some ongoing questions and talk on his reasoning behind the decision; I have not yet received a response to the offer--I did, however, indicate that I was just leaving for UK Games Expo, and wouldn't be back until this week.

*Normally I would have covered this in a more timely fashion, but I was away at UK Games Expo from Thursday through to Monday.

 

[mamba]

Just because one side breaks a contract doesn't mean the other side can immediately and irrevocably without fear or retaliation do the same.

all of this assumes that Goodman wants out, I have no indication that he does. As far as I can tell he is doing exactly what he wanted to, he just doesn’t like the backlash by some over it and calls that a ‘mischaracterization’ because he does not like to be called out for his behavior

 

[Argyle King]

I think it's accurate to say that Joseph Goodman wants to print the project. He admits that in videos.

GG appears to be following through with steps that were claimed to prevent Bledsaw from getting money from this.

That threading of the needle currently appears to be acceptable enough for over 2100 people to back the project (assuming the backers are aware of the controversy at all).

 

[Umbran]

So this contract has a disparagement clause ...

You seem to be trying to fit everything under a disparagement clause, which isn't appropriate. NDAs and disparagement clauses are different, and restrict different things. Their impact can depend a lot on exactly how they are worded.

I don't claim he's clearly bound by such, just that they are plausible.

There is a third thing, in that an agreement to do X may restrict you from willfully doing a crappy job of X. This is pretty darned common - when you enter a contract, a certain quality of effort is expected and/or required. Doing or saying things that will strongly dissuade customers from buying could very likely fit in this category. Willfully tanking your own project is a good way to get sued by a licensing partner.

 

[Gradine]

I believe his desire to publish CSIO made him overlook / downplay what he had to do to get it published. I doubt there was anything forcing Goodman's hand other than his own desire to do so. Unforced error seems to be the most fitting description.

This really does seem to be the "Occam's Razor" answer here. Goodman is undoubtedly sincere (or at least believes himself to be sincere, which is essentially the same thing) in his stance an attitude towards issues of social justice and equality. He most likely just allowed his rose-colored glasses towards CSIO to make signing up with Bledsaw again seem not so bad, or maybe he truly thought that by setting up the trust to repay the previous backers and limiting the run to limit what profits JG makes truly did make up for it all.

And those same rose-colored glasses, maybe combined with some sunk cost fallacy, has set him on the path to refuse to listen to the people telling him that he's wrong, that it doesn't make up for it, that it doesn't make any of it okay.

When all you can truly do is speculate, the best route to go is charitable thinking. This is why I say, upthread (or maybe up another thread, there's too many to keep track these days) that I don't think he's necessarily a bad person, or deliberately lying, or anything like that. He's just made a terrible error in judgment and has chosen to dig in to his position. That said, he has earned every consequence that comes his (and his company's) way as a result.

 

[Morrus]

So this contract has a disparagement clause that would prevent saying it was signed before 2020 or that they're obligated to fulfill the terms because that would damage sales, but at the same time it allows Goodman to repeatedly take to video to talk about how reprehensible the Bledshaws are including saying in 2020 that they're so terrible he'll never do business with them again? And that's ok under the disparagement clause?

That's a little rough to buy into.

While the terminology here is wrong, and there is no evidence of a 'disparagement clause' (in fact GG's words suggest the opposite), it does seem odd that Goodman Games is allowed to (a) publicly condemn Bledshaw's statements, and (b) reveal that the royalty is 10%; and Bledsaw is allowed to say that the deal was done in 2022, but Goodman Games is contractually not allowed to say when the deal was done. I mean, a contract could be written that way, but it's pretty oddly specific, and weirdly prescient, and does not benefit anybody. I wish Joseph Goodman would just talk to us. But I guess he doesn't have to, and given the success of the crowdfunder, there's probably no compelling reason to.

 

[timbannock]

Yeah, any doubts he had about this whole situation have probably mostly or completely evaporated in the face of "well I wasn't the only one who cared about seeing this project through."

 

[Baron Opal II]

I wish Joseph Goodman would just talk to us. But I guess he doesn't have to, and given the success of the crowdfunder, there's probably no compelling reason to.

I can imagine he's a little tired of explaining himself. Brought it on himself, but, yeah.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I can imagine he's a little tired of explaining himself. Brought it on himself, but, yeah.

Nothing exhausts me more than the consequences of my actions.

 

[Argyle King]

Honestly, if I were advising Joseph Goodman on PR, I would lean toward telling him not to do more interviews, despite the rocky rollout of the project -at least not right now.

The project appears to be a success. As well, some portions of the community asking questions the loudest have noticeable overlap with portions of the audience who default to assuming the worst and will likely never be satisfied.

At some point down the road, it may be worthwhile to reflect on CSIO and engage in an after-action review (AAR) to learn how to better approach communication in the future. That could be coupled with community engagement to inform the community how the company will endeavor to build toward a future that's better. "We admit that X could have been better, so we will take Action Y to ensure that doesn't happen again." Even if the public commentary doesn't occur, the AAR likely should.

As CSIO winds down to the final 43 hours, it currently sits at having made 52x what it needed to make to be funded.

Simultaneously, Goodman Games has also announced that their Free RPG Day offering will be an introductory adventure that leads into the future (October) Castle Whiterock release. That campaign already has more people following it than CSIO did.

 

[EthanSental]

Slowing down as mentioned earlier but makes sense with the costs of those pledge levels. Estimated at 738K now for an ending funding total.

Still tapping the brakes, estimated at 679k now for funding total.