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

I think for that they'd have to pull out the implied setting stuff (Bugs! Technos! Shardra the Castrator!) and build it up from there.

If the OAR line is going to continue without the license to do TSR stuff, it's going to have to expand its scope.
No doubt. Expanding on the implied setting stuff to make the updated/new content portion of the book into an actual setting guide seems apropos.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

View attachment 407718

I was always a bit wary of the handful of people on Reddit and ENWorld overemphasizing the financial impact of the JG Disaster but damn I didn't expect this. Seems like a sizable portion of GG Customers don't care much.
Hang on, weren't they going to limit the amount of money they took in? Are all these people just giving money at the "I support you without a reward" level?
 

It would seem plausible, but if the legal agreement was that comprehensive in its terms and conditions, it wouldn't also have a boilerplate conduct clause that can justify a termination of the agreement? My understanding is that is very common and has been for some time.
I negotiate contracts for a living, including IP licensing sometimes (though not primarily and not every day, and also not in TTRPGs or a related industry), and I'd be surprised to see personal conduct listed as a reason for termination specifically, especially for the licensee to have the right to terminate because of the licensor's conduct. (I'd be less surprised by a licensor wanting to have the right to term for the licensee's behavior.) It's not really boilerplate language for termination. What I would expect to see is some sort of termination for convenience, likely mutual, which would allow for a party to terminate for any reason (including conduct of a party), but wouldn't require that the terminating party justify the reason for exercising their termination rights.

The contract dispute still happens either way, but at least I was honest in my communication to the public. It’s also not like he announced that in 2020 and at any point after said something like ‘I am sorry, I thought we could terminate the existing contract, but the lawyers / courts disagreed, so we will be releasing CSIO as a consequence of that’. At no point in time did Goodman say anything that would indicate that their hands were tied, he even said something about wanting to build bridges
I think in one of the previous threads, Goodman was quoted as saying that he was subject to some confidentiality restrictions as to what he could say about the agreement with JG and its context. Although nothing subsequent to that has suggested that GG is doing this under duress to me, I wonder if making the sort of statement you've proposed could leave him exposed legally? This last is purely conjecture on my part, and I still think that he's made an absolute hash of this regardless. Goodwill burns quick, and he's not covered himself in glory here.
 

I notice that little extra print run detail (excess will be sold off) tucked away, and wonder just how much that might bring on outside of public view...
 
Last edited:

There's so much we don't know that it really comes down to trust and judgement. Given Joe Goodman's history, do we think it's plausible he is doing this because he genuinely doesn't care about collaborating with Bledsaw? Or does he think that cutting them out of royalties is sufficient?

I think if you're of the mind that licensing while cutting out of the royalties is beyond the pale, then Joe Goodman genuinely disagrees with you and that he's not being forced to. Whether that disagreement is enough to never support the company is another question.
 

Cutting Bledsaw out of royalties (and we shall assume any other financial benefits derived from the CSIO project) is good.

Making it plain to see that Bledsaw's views are not a deal breaker when considering whom to approach about licenses or possibly other things is not good.

Though deeply annoying to me personally, $80k in Bledsaw's bank account would probably have had no great or lasting consequences. Sending the message that it is fine to approach people with his view for collaboration or to see what licenses they might have to offer for your own projects, and thereby at least risking to normalize their views, does run the very real danger of lasting consequences.
 

I do want to push back on this, because while this is true at the highest levels (particularly when it comes to overarching political ethos), when you drill into the details it's not even close. In particular, literally every form of bigotry you might imagine is a extreme minority, albeit with outsized influence (both socially and politically). They like to ride single file to hide their numbers, but when push comes to shove they are a sad, lonely bunch.
Probably, but . . .

Bigots are loud, passionate, motivated, and organized. So they show up in numbers compared to the non-bigots that throw off such estimates.

I don't think that's why the City State kickstarter is doing well, I think that is due to folks who are unaware of the controversy, or who don't care, or don't care enough for it to keep them from backing the project.
 

The three threads here have done more to "platform" Bledsaw than Goodman Games is doing by printing CSIO.
My group will not back this project, but that is because it is not something we will use.
If we did plan to buy it, the majority of my group is young enough to not know about Judges Guild,
and I do not see anything about what Goodman Games is doing that gives Bledsaw any extra attention.
 

The three threads here have done more to "platform" Bledsaw than Goodman Games is doing by printing CSIO.
My group will not back this project, but that is because it is not something we will use.
If we did plan to buy it, the majority of my group is young enough to not know about Judges Guild,
and I do not see anything about what Goodman Games is doing that gives Bledsaw any extra attention.

Ahhhh, yes—the ol’ “the people that complained are the real problem here!” canard.
 

The three threads here have done more to "platform" Bledsaw than Goodman Games is doing by printing CSIO.
My group will not back this project, but that is because it is not something we will use.
If we did plan to buy it, the majority of my group is young enough to not know about Judges Guild,
and I do not see anything about what Goodman Games is doing that gives Bledsaw any extra attention.

Fun fact: there are four threads. Did you miss this one?


It's very interesting how people who wants to support Goodman seem to forget about the post where Bob Bledsaw II talks about how excited he is to be working with Goodman for the last couple years, and the projects Bledsaw is looking forward to based on the success of this Kickstarter.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top