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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I'm not saying usability isn't important. I'm saying it isn't more important IMO (which is all either of us have) than reading enjoyment.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not saying usability isn't important. I'm saying it isn't more important IMO (which is all either of us have) than reading enjoyment.

I think you might want to reassess your idea of what an RPG book is. Like I said, the G is for game, which mitigates for usability. I'm not talking about what anyone likes, or wants, but what an RPG is by definition (to some extent). People might very well buy RPG books to read, but that's a very different thing than trying to state that RPGs are written to be read.

 

[Mannahnin]

I tend to concur that the nature of it being a GAME product means that usability in a game naturally comes first.

Customers can buy what better fits their preferences and needs, of course. Folks who buy game books primarily to read them will naturally gravitate toward ones written more for reading pleasure than for gaming usability.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you might want to reassess your idea of what an RPG book is. Like I said, the G is for game, which mitigates for usability. I'm not talking about what anyone likes, or wants, but what an RPG is by definition (to some extent). People might very well buy RPG books to read, but that's a very different thing than trying to state that RPGs are written to be read.

I am in fact succeeding to state that RPGs are written to be read, and also to be played. Both things equally IMO. Neither of our personal preferences for which one matters more to us changes that. I know I would have bought far less product over the years if the "G" as you say was afforded significantly greater important that reading enjoyment, and the ones that have had that focus that I did buy, like D&D 4e, I enjoyed on both fronts considerably less.

 

[Fenris-77]

I am in fact succeeding to state that RPGs are written to be read, and also to be played. Both things equally IMO. Neither of our personal preferences for which one matters more to us changes that. I know I would have bought far less product over the years if the "G" as you say was afforded significantly greater important that reading enjoyment, and the ones that have had that focus that I did buy, like D&D 4e, I enjoyed on both fronts considerably less.

Yeah, I think this is overstated. RPG books are indeed meant to be both things, but that doesn't mean both things equally, or that they are in any way interchangeable. RPG books are, by definition, game books and for whatever else they might be good at if they fail at that one thing then they are poor examples of the type.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is an interesting twist on the Chicken vs. Egg exercise.

An RPG book is a game, and games are meant to be played. But it is also a book, and books are meant to be read. So does that mean it was a book ("egg") first, which eventually becomes a game ("chicken") after reading it? or was it a game first, which produced a book when its ideals got written down?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I think this is overstated. RPG books are indeed meant to be both things, but that doesn't mean both things equally, or that they are in any way interchangeable. RPG books are, by definition, game books and for whatever else they might be good at if they fail at that one thing then they are poor examples of the type.

Are you saying Goodman Games stuff tend to be failures then, if you have objections to their usability? An awful lot of buyers would likely disagree with you on that point, even if they agree on the usability issue. Because not everyone sees things the way you (or I) do.

 

[Retreater]

I've sometimes wondered what an RPG would look like that was a solo experience - but for a GM. Like you design your campaign world, get to invest points into certain player archetypes, have a specific amount of plot complications that you can add, etc. Maybe it could even double as a journaling game to help GMs prepare their campaigns.

 

[Fenris-77]

Are you saying Goodman Games stuff tend to be failures then, if you have objections to their usability? An awful lot of buyers would likely disagree with you on that point, even if they agree on the usability issue. Because not everyone sees things the way you (or I) do.

Those are other words you're putting in my mouth. I wasn't speaking specifically about any book, just about RPG books in general.

 

[Mannahnin]

Are you saying Goodman Games stuff tend to be failures then, if you have objections to their usability? An awful lot of buyers would likely disagree with you on that point, even if they agree on the usability issue. Because not everyone sees things the way you (or I) do.

Failures at what?

Ben Milton argues that they are failing to publish as usable and valuable game books than they would if they adopted some better practices in formatting and layout.

If their primary goal is to sell books, with little regard to how often they get played, and their market research indicates that their buyers primarily buy to read rather than to play, then they should certainly disregard his opinion.

Your bit about not everyone seeing things the same way is obvious, already explicitly stated by Milton in both of his videos, and kind of insulting for you to keep repeating as if not everyone understands that.