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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As I look at the comments above, it sure seems like people are saying guilt by association.
Nope.

We've had three large threads on this, can't expect you to read it all, but . . . thanks for assuming. Incorrectly.

Folks (mostly) are upset that Goodman Games distanced themselves from Judges Guild a few years ago when the community learned the owners of JG are blatant and proud antisemites . . . and are now going back on that by getting into business with them.

Most folks aren't saying the folks at Goodman Games are a bunch of Nazis . . . but rather than they are willing to get into business with a bunch of Nazis, which isn't a good thing.

Are some folks taking this farther? Sure. But not most folks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I don't think that's what most people are saying. They're saying they feel that GG should not work with bigoted partners. There's a difference. That they're saying that GG is clearly bigoted is... not quite a credible leap, to borrow a phrase.

Sure, maybe exceptions exist (because given a large enough sample any opinion will exist and it's the internet) but that's not really what most people are saying, is it?
I can’t speak for others, but that’s my position.

I haven’t read or heard any bigoted statements from GG, but choosing to work with known Holocaust deniers who, when called out, doubled down on where they stand, is 100% a choice they have made.

GG can argue whatever reason they like for choosing to work with them, but that’s the choice they made that I absolutely disagree with. I don’t want to support companies that work with people like that.
 



Goodman Games: We’re inclusive.

Also Goodman Games: We’re working directly with holocaust deniers.

Does he not see how the dissonance between those 2 positions?

Well, just for sake of checking out possibilities, let us consider, for the moment, the possibility that, in fact, he really wants to be inclusive, and has good intentions.

How might working with an objectionable person fit in?

In his, and many people's minds, the original is an iconic work in gaming, right? And maybe it isn't itself laden with problematic content. The original work, itself, is mostly okay, it just comes from a bad source.

Then, Goodman may feel he might act like a filter, or a spacer - distancing the work from the origin, making it available to folks who couldn't bear to buy from JG these days. Thus the effort to not pay JG and Bledsaw royalties - that problematic source doesn't get money. Old backers get their money back. Trying to make the best out of a bad source.

There's a miscalculation there, in that a vocal section of the market is zero-tolerance, and would prefer to not ever see the material at all over even saying "Hello" to JG. Goodman may be trying his darnedest to make it palatable, and just didn't get that there is no way to make it palatable.

We could read this as Goodman not being a bad actor, but being seriously out of touch.
 


FWIW, classic examples of good people working with/for bad people can be found all over the legal system. Even criminals have a right to effective counsel.

Just as a fr’ex, the ACLU has had its attorneys defending Klansmen, Neonazis, and the like when certain legal issues arise, like free speech or free association.

(Personally, I had no qualms about defending the guilty- I avoided becoming a defense attorney in part because I didn’t want to screw up a case where my client was innocent.)

Here, I can understand GG’s position. I don’t agree with it, though. I can’t see a path in which GG wouldn’t catch at least some flak for doing business with the current iteration of JG. Some things are not worth getting dirty for, and this is one of them.

(OTOH, take my position with a grain of salt, because I have all of the original City State/Wilderlands, etc. from JG.)
 

Some folk don't see licensing the property as "working with," since JG isn't involved in the design of the remake. I mentioned this in another thread, but originally when all of this went down folk on the GG Discord were incensed at the news.. but then when it became clear that JG wasn't directly involved, the earnings were going to pay off the old KSer refunds, etc. it became a much more reasonable prospect... Then Bledsaw shot his mouth off on social media, saying a bunch of stuff about further works with GG that GG later said was false.

So, it's a tough spot. In GG's mind this is likely a beloved IP that they're revitalizing/preserving and they've done their best to distance themselves from JG... yet early on they were talking about building bridges, and they clearly have no intention of dropping the project, seemingly regardless of the IP owner's actions. This also does give JG a bit of a spotlight where they've had little to none for years.

Folk on the GG Discord seem happy to get the product, they don't see "licensing the IP" as "working with," I guess "in business with" would be a more definite statement but they largely seem placated on the ethical issues of the project. I'm still uncomfortable with it, which sucks because otherwise I'd back it in a second because I really enjoy GG's products.

The association with Bledsaw/JG also tarnishes GG's reputation, but I don't think it's to the degree that some folk think :(

For some of us it's black and white (some one way, some the other), and for others it's a mess that we (I) can't ethically justify. I think what really nails it down as "I can't support this" is the timeline. GG said they weren't going to do any more JG products due to their views. This is another JG product. They're trying to "build bridges" with nasty folk... I don't get it :'(
 
Last edited:

Well, just for sake of checking out possibilities, let us consider, for the moment, the possibility that, in fact, he really wants to be inclusive, and has good intentions.

How might working with an objectionable person fit in?

In his, and many people's minds, the original is an iconic work in gaming, right? And maybe it isn't itself laden with problematic content. The original work, itself, is mostly okay, it just comes from a bad source.

Then, Goodman may feel he might act like a filter, or a spacer - distancing the work from the origin, making it available to folks who couldn't bear to buy from JG these days. Thus the effort to not pay JG and Bledsaw royalties - that problematic source doesn't get money. Old backers get their money back. Trying to make the best out of a bad source.

There's a miscalculation there, in that a vocal section of the market is zero-tolerance, and would prefer to not ever see the material at all over even saying "Hello" to JG. Goodman may be trying his darnedest to make it palatable, and just didn't get that there is no way to make it palatable.

We could read this as Goodman not being a bad actor, but being seriously out of touch.
That's my take.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top