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.

 

[Fenris-77]

They are also books designed to be read and should be judged on that criteria as well. Plenty of folks and use RPG products that way, so disregarding that group is more personal preference than best practice IMO.

If it's an RPG product it's almost by definition supposed to be read and also used. I'm not hating on books that are designed to also have reading value, but RPG books are not supposed to just be read, they are supposed to be used. They are supposed to functional to some extent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it's an RPG product it's almost by definition supposed to be read and also used. I'm not hating on books that are designed to also have reading value, but RPG books are not supposed to just be read, they are supposed to be used. They are supposed to functional to some extent.

Right, but the reading part is, IMO and based on buyer habits as far as I know, at least as important a metric as raw usability at the table, which has clearly been the focus of yourself and some others in this discussion.

 

[Argyle King]

I just watched Questing Beast's review of the layout and usability of DCC books and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The negative response from people defending the "nostalgic" layout and typography is utterly confusing to me. Does old school really also mean "poor usability"? Is this fondly remembered? You can make something look kitbashed and 'zine like without sacrificing better structure and graphic design. Amateur charm doesn't have to mean badly laid out text.

I don't understand this attachment. DCC's charm is the artwork, crazy tables and ideas, not the layout and typography, to be honest. Labyrinth Lord did "retro, but also still legible and usable" much better.

I guess that Old School Essentials, Shadowdark and the Monster Overhaul spoiled me. Lamentations of the Flame Princess too.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately due to discussion earlier in the thread because I am someone who strongly dislikes the OSE layout (or at least the adventure pushed forward as the best example of it).

While I certainly see the merits of keywords and such, there are a lot of times when the longer descriptions and being able to read something is helpful.

In particular, I'm still very new to DCC. Having more information to understand campaign concepts, game rule features of a particular room, or gain a better understanding of how the pieces are meant to flow together has been very helpful. So, while I see the value of the abbreviated information for speed of reference; that speed doesn't help me unless I already have a better understanding of the concepts they are abbreviating.

Also, there are encounter concepts for which I feel the OSE approach is poorly suited to try to explain. If a room, encounter, or situation can have several possible states of play (i.e. antagonists who don't stay in one place; rooms that change orientation or shape; branching paths). In those cases, it is helpful to have more information.

On the other end of the spectrum, I also play a lot of GURPS. While I love the system and the books are fantastic reference documents for reading about various things, there are certainly times when a better GUI interface or abridged version of information would be nice.

I was reading through one of the GURPS Sorcery pdfs written by Jason 'PK' Levine, and the format he uses to write out the Sorcery spells is a nice mix of everything I need. At the beginning, there is a short set of labels and keywords. Right after that comes the prose description. Then, at the end, is the under-the-hood nuts and bolts of GURPS mechanics for those who want to see how exactly things were put together.

Writing out spell descriptions is a different thing from rooms or encounters, I believe how he writes things out is a good illustration of how you might still do what DCC does while still incorporating elements that allow for quickly referencing key information.

Edit: cleaned up some grammar and spelling for clarity

 

[Fenris-77]

Right, but the reading part is, IMO and based on buyer habits as far as I know, at least as important a metric as raw usability at the table, which has clearly been the focus of yourself and some others in this discussion.

I guess, but this is, IMO, a backward way to look at it. We have on the one hand why people buy RPG books, and on the other what they are supposed to be use for. The former doesn't really inform the latter, or at least it shouldn't to any great extent. If an 'RPG' book is unusable at the table (for some value of that term) but fun to read I think it's verging on a different kind of book.

Obviously, I'm leaning on an extreme example here when the truth of the matter is a spectrum but that's just to highlight that RPGs books have, by their nature, a functional component and the extent to which an author or designer chooses to go another direction in that regard moves their text away from what we might call normative RPG writing.

 

[overgeeked]

I have threads on the topic if people want to stop derailing this thread.

Modules: Made to Read vs Made to Run?

Thread 'Best practices for easy-to-run modules [+]'

Nov 17, 2025

The [+] is to keep things positive and prevent the already tired arguments about preferences and this style of module. This thread is for people who like this style of information design and want to talk about it. There are plenty of other threads to hate on things you don’t like.

Branching off of this thread.

Several modules were talked about in the other thread, many OSR modules were mentioned. So it's worth reading some of the posts there for modules to check out.

But, moving ahead to talking about actual module design, what are some ways modules can use...

• overgeeked
• Replies: 182
• Forum: *TTRPGs General

• 

 

[The Firebird]

I wonder what percentage of RPG books are actually played. I've talked to some independent publishers who say that the market incentives in kickstarters etc. are all for display, collectible pieces, good branding, etc., much more so than usability at the table. Goodman appeals to these consumers; folks buy multiple versions of their core book just to get a different cover.

 

[Morrus]

I wonder what percentage of RPG books are actually played.

The TTRPG hobby includes three main subsets of the hobby--Collecting, Reading, and Playing. I have a lot of games in all three of those categories (and some which straddle all three!)

 

[Fenris-77]

The TTRPG hobby includes three main subsets of the hobby--Collecting, Reading, and Playing. I have a lot of games in all three of those categories (and some which straddle all three!)

I think this is accurate, but it's not quite the same as why those books are written in the first place.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I guess, but this is, IMO, a backward way to look at it. We have on the one hand why people buy RPG books, and on the other what they are supposed to be use for. The former doesn't really inform the latter, or at least it shouldn't to any great extent. If an 'PG' book is unusable at the table (for some value of that term) but fun to read I think it's verging on a different kind of book.

Obviously, I'm leaning on an extreme example here when the truth of the matter is a spectrum but that's just to highlight that RPGs books have, by their nature, a functional component and the extent to which an author or designer chooses to go another direction in that regard moves their text away from what we might call normative RPG writing.

So you think a strong focus on usability over reading enjoyment is "normative"? Since when? I wouldn't say either metric gets to call itself that in any non-subjective way. You seeing my interest in reading enjoyment as backward is your personal bias as far as I can see, nothing more. Another appeal to popularity (and I'm not sure your view is even the more popular) to support a subjective argument.

 

[Fenris-77]

So you think a strong focus on usability over reading enjoyment is "normative"? Since when? I wouldn't say either metric gets to call itself that in any non-subjective way. You seeing my interest in reading enjoyment as backward is your personal bias as far as I can see, nothing more. Another appeal to popularity (and I'm not sure your view is even the more popular) to support a subjective argument.

Well, I didn't use any words anything like 'strong', so let's put that particular canard aside. I think that RPG books have a focus on both readability and usability. Books that drop the ball on either count end up on the periphery. That's not a bad thing, especially for books meant to be read and not used, but that doesn't make those book the same as other RPG books. You can't ignore that RPG books are designed to used (if they want to claim to RPG books anyway). The G in RPG mitigates for usability, it's unavoidable.