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.

 

[zakael19]

I mean, these dungeons have good maps from a top down perspective. I think there’s some assumption that a GM can look at that and orient any specific features as needed from different directions? I’m struggling to understand how this is a serious thing unless you’re doing huge rooms routinely or some such.

Anyway, I didn’t have any issues running a room with 3 different entrances or the like. The BOLD LANDMARK (extra details), Hidden, >Secret format let me quickly ensure players got the relevant info to make turn action declarations and then adjudicate within the games procedures.

 

[Mannahnin]

That's part of what I mean. I'm trying to think of a better way to fully explain.

Let's say that, in a hypothetical adventure, there are two possible ways to enter the dungeon: 'A' and 'B.' 'A' would bring you to #13 first, and you would then go down to #22. The 'B' way brings you to #22 first and you would go up to #13. The description for #13 may be different depending upon whether you enter from the 'A' direction or enter from the 'B' direction.

That's especially true if there are creatures in the room. From one direction, they may be across the room and behind a barricade. From the other direction, you may get the drop on them from behind the barricade and they're right there as soon as you come through the archway.

Would an OSE-like approach offer two sets of keywords to account for how encountering the room may be different depending upon direction of travel?

From what I've seen of them, they don't need to, because if a room can be entered from multiple directions it's written so as not to assume that the characters are coming from any particular direction.

 

[Argyle King]

Even worse is when a room write-up uses "left" and "right" to describe where things are in the room even though different directions of approach can transpose those, or make them into "ahead" and "behind".

Cardinal directions (north, south, etc.) are your friend.

Love it!

Thanks.

•The room was based upon the concept of a Rubik's cube. Each of the surfaces (4 walls, ceiling, and floor) could rotate.

•Levers found near the corners of the room activated either clockwise or counter-clockwise rotation of one of the surfaces.

•There were also a few false levers that would activate various traps. The original version was written up when I was running D&D 4th Edition; the traps included Spinning Blade traps (large spinning tops with blades attached to them) and flames that would shoot out of holes in the walls. Information that could be gained elsewhere in the dungeon could make knowing the false levers easier.

•When I ran the encounter at the table, I used seperate pieces of paper for each of the surfaces (placed on the table similar to how I've seen tesseract illustrations in some old D&D books.) I physically rotated a piece of paper when its respective room was rotated.

 

[Retreater]

Ben's criticism that many people purchase DCC products "just to read them" - I'm not sure if that is uncommon for other publishers. I have many books across a spectrum of different publishers for different systems that I've never played. Some I have purchased without the intent to play. I don't think that necessarily speaks to the quality of the product.
For example, I own Rifts books that I like for the lore, the art, and the vibes. Would never run them. Would I trade them in for usable OSE adventures? No.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

What do we care that the book is basically useless at the table without the referee putting in dozens of hours of work transcribing and rewriting the bits and pieces they want to use?

For some people, that's what they find fun.

 

[mamba]

It also hinges on the two forms being incompatible goals.

yes, I believe they are in conflict at least. Up to a point you can satisfy both, but you won’t be great at both. So at some point one will have to take precedence, but you clearly can have adventures that are bad at both

 

[mamba]

Ben's criticism that many people purchase DCC products "just to read them" - I'm not sure if that is uncommon for other publishers.

he compared GG and OSE / Necrotic Gnome. For GG he got 50% play, for OSE 70%, so no, it is not uncommon. The question simply is which of the two you should go for as a designer (and maybe why you do not write a novel instead when you go for the reader-audience)

 

[Echohawk]

I don't think in terms of cardinal directions.

Me neither. One of my pet peeves is the Google Maps voice instructing me to "Head North" when giving me directions. How am I supposed to know which way that is? Please don't assume I spent my starting gear gp on a compass!

 

[Parmandur]

yes, I believe they are in conflict at least. Up to a point you can satisfy both, but you won’t be great at both. So at some point one will have to take precedence, but you clearly can have adventures that are bad at both

They may be in tension, but I don't think it is as dire as all that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

he compared GG and OSE / Necrotic Gnome. For GG he got 50% play, for OSE 70%, so no, it is not uncommon. The question simply is which of the two you should go for as a designer (and maybe why you do not write a novel instead when you go for the reader-audience)

Worldbuilding is a different experience than just writing a story. It focuses on setting rather than plot or character. I really wish people would stop telling fans of it that they should just write a novel. If that's what they wanted that's what they would do. To me that reads as just another way to try pushing people with different preferences out of the hobby.