Search results

and they still turn a profit on them, so they are not loss leaders. They are their most profitable D&D products due to volume. In addition, this was about the digital DDB copy too, where there is no relevant cost difference between a 200 page ‘book’ and a 400 page one at the same price. So this...

not really, if you look at the list… the first seven OAR had no crowdfunding, and it beat the Dark Tower but not Caverns of Thracia, most of the others were smaller projects to begin with

no, it is not a loss leader, far from it and if I buy it on DTRPG they get those $5 / 30%, doesn’t mean that every class there costs $15. $15 for a single class is a lot either way, that is half of what the PHB costs. I would be much more inclined to spend $50 on the entire Valda book than $15...

and I think they didn’t and that it would be both a weird use of ‘serious’ and something odd to even bring up, as all that apparently means is ‘we take game development serious’ which literally everyone does. 🤷

15 is still steep, unless DDB needs some changes on the backend to support it. The PHB costs $30 and contains 12 classes, so $5 would be more in line with that. Make it $10 because you do not get anywhere as many sales…

devoid of jokes is not the same as serious / mature, BG3 had jokes. Also, talk is cheap, of course they want to make a game that sells well, that kinda goes without saying. I am not aware of anyone producing games that do not want that… If what they wanted to say is that they want to make...

that would be even more meaningless, and an odd choice of words. I do assume it does mean something along the lines of ‘mature’ / ‘not light hearted’ rather than your ‘lots of sales’ interpretation

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

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.

he has been working on MtG too, I am not sure it has to be TTRPGs at all… it also still leaves the ‘which game system and am I interested in it’ part wide open

sure, I doubt it goes 10 years out though. Two years are probably pretty firm, the next three pretty soft, and anything beyond that is not even a plan in some ways, like how many releases per year, most likely, but it won’t be a mirror of the past ten which is why sales will decide this more...

I’ll keep an eye out for what he is doing where he lands, but I am more interested in what he does on his patreon than with his employer, doesn’t look like they have much going on in the TTRPG space, so either it won’t be that, or it is a game system I am not that interested in - unless they...

I doubt they have a plan for 203x (schedule for playtests to get to a 2034 release, or a plan for an update then in the first place). They might do something because it then is 60 years of D&D, but not because it is 20 years of 5e. I would not be surprised if we see a second revision before...

I’d argue the rules were the least of their problems such as? Haven’t been following Sigil closely…

you did not mention any other reason at all…

I take it that this is your main concern with purchasing from him...

same, life continues just like before, the only thing that has changed is my stance on Goodman. Saves me some money

given that none of these threads would exist without GG printing CSIO, the platforming of Bledsaw is a direct consequence of Goodman’s decision I’d also argue that making people aware of something is not the same as platforming it

I assume the latter, given that the project is happening at all it could also be the former everyone can decide that for themselves, I have made my decision

no idea, apparently he was able to mention / confirm that he was under a confidentiality agreement at least, that is not always the case either. I assume that in that case he probably could have said a little more too, but as you wrote, I see no duress here anyway, just Goodman valuing the...