|
This is interesting.
From Goodman Games:
Hi everyone,
It's a new year with some new ideas! I've been thinking over a new approach with the DCC line and wanted to get some feedback. Think for a moment about the RPG market over the last few years:
2001-2004: 80%+ of RPG'ers were playing 3E.
2004-2005: Some gamers fell off between 3E and 3.5, but still 75% playing 3.5.
2005-2007: D20 variants multiply. Mutants & Masterminds, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, Castles & Crusades, Conan, others. Most of the market is playing some version of 3E, but it's no longer all D&D. Various d20 publishers begin to release their own stand-alone RPG's (e.g., Runequest).
2008: Most, but not all, of the RPG market converts to 4E. Market is now split between 4E and many varieties of 3E holdouts. Other systems proliferate, including Hackmaster Basic and the 1E retro-clones. "Old-school" goes mainstream. Goodman Games remains the only "d20 company" still primarily supporting WotC D&D.
2009: Pathfinder releases. Fantasy RPG market is now split between 4E and Pathfinder, with another big chunk split to the other stand-alone RPG's (Castles & Crusades, Runequest, Fantasycraft, upcoming Dragon Age, etc.), and another chunk shopping online in the retro-clone market (which I personally have a fondness for).
2010: What's a module publisher to do?
My primary love remains adventures, but the market is so fragmented that the customers who played DCC modules in 2004 are now playing 6 different systems.
Here's something I've been thinking about. What if a DCC were written in "native 4E" but there were downloads to support other systems? Or...what if the DCC had generic stats ("Orc, 6 hp, axe, chainmail")...and ALL detailed stats were available as a download? So if you play 4E you download the 4E stats PDF...if you play Pathfinder you download the Pathfinder stats PDF...etc.
Tell me what you think.
Full post here.
Opinions? Personally, I like the concept. It's an interesting way of utilizing both print and pdf strengths in today's rpg market.
Standardization always wins in the long run. If the market is so divided that you can only maintain a tight focus on a small group you will lose out. If they figure out a way to make them standard so that anyone can buy the product and download the correct rule-set you have a goldmine.
my .02
Goodman irritated the crap out of me with his rant so now I make a point not to support anything he is associated with. If he were to stop pu***-footing around and just full-on support Pathfinder I might reconsider, but until that time, I just view him as a 4E/WoTC sycophant. Sorry if that sounds kinda lame but he bugged me with that rant.
|
2008: Most, but not all, of the RPG market converts to 4E. Market is now split between 4E and many varieties of 3E holdouts. Other systems proliferate, including Hackmaster Basic and the 1E retro-clones. "Old-school" goes mainstream. Goodman Games remains the only "d20 company" still primarily supporting WotC D&D.
Sounds like revisionist history to me...
The only thing more painful than loosing Goodman Games to 4e was their dragging Blackdirge away with them.
The only thing more painful than loosing Goodman Games to 4e was their dragging Blackdirge away with them.
I have to agree with you there. Every time I see something of his put out, I'm disappointed that there wasn't a Pathfinder version. His stuff in the 3.5 days rocked!
I'm registering on his forum just to make clear that I would only buy product made for Pathfinder (well that or Castles & Crusades lol). I'm not interested in anything 4E or even 3.5E as I don't want to have to convert.
Opinions? Personally, I like the concept. It's an interesting way of utilizing both print and pdf strengths in today's rpg market.
I always suspected that multiple-statted adventures weren't worth the effort to create, but maybe I'm wrong.
(I used to own copies of "Bad Medicine for Dr. Drugs" and "The Great Supervillain Contest" [Champions + Superworld]; can any erstwhile Superworld players tell me if the conversions were any good?)
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I think this is a good idea in theory, but in implementation it would require some really skilled design. I'm not saying Goodman doesn't employ writers who could rise to the challenge, but I also think that simply saying "same adventure, different stats" is underestimating what will actually go into the process.
4e adventures and 3.5/Pathfinder adventures tend to have very different feels to them, especially in terms of tactics, how skills and roleplay situations are handled, and what resources PCs have at different levels. And a generic "orc, 6 hp, etc." entry in a print book isn't going to be as universal as Goodman indicates, since hp vary widely over different challenge ratings between systems. Even the CR range is different between them, and some monsters that can be handled by 5th level PCs in one system are much more or less challenging in the other.
Even if all the balance and design hurdles were cleared, I would still be hesitant to buy a print book that I couldn't use except with an additional pdf. I'm a big fan of pdfs, but I don't like to run games from them. I wouldn't like having to print out all the stats for the system I was running and then keep all the loose leaf pages organized enough that I could easily reference them as I went through the printed book.
My gut feeling is that Goodman needs to support one system or the other, or produce different material for each. The current suggestion just seems noncommittal and capricious and like it would be more trouble than it's worth for designers, developers, marketing, and the end user.
|
|
My gut feeling is that Goodman needs to support one system or the other, or produce different material for each. The current suggestion just seems noncommittal and capricious and like it would be more trouble than it's worth for designers, developers, marketing, and the end user.
Let me try something here. Nicolas Logue (yes, THAT Nick) will be releasing his Sinister Adventure lineup in multiple systems:
From the Dark Vista mega-adventure:
Purchase a print edition of this Dark Vista and get PDFs configured for multiple game systems for free. Purchase a PDF and get addtional PDFs compatible with other game systems for free as well.
Preorder your copy of Razor Coast today! You choose between OGL 3.5, Pathfinder Compatible, or Savage Worlds compatible print versions when we ship - you get PDFs of all of them for free!
I can tell you, from personal experience, that Savage Worlds makes 3.x, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th edition look like genetic triplets. There are, for example, no hitpoints in SW. Following the above argument, should Nick reconsider his game plan as well?
I can tell you, from personal experience, that Savage Worlds makes 3.x, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th edition look like genetic triplets. There are, for example, no hitpoints in SW. Following the above argument, should Nick reconsider his game plan as well?
I agree with Yoda that it's probably more trouble than it's worth. But if Nick feels that's a fun and profitable use of his time, who am I to tell him not to do it?
Maybe we should ask Green Ronin how something like this works. After all, with their updated release of the main Freeport source book, they made it statless and printed separate guide books with stat blocks for several systems like d20/3rd Era, True20, Savage Worlds, and Castles & Crusades.
Isn't it against the GSL to release a 4e product under a different system? Or is that only if you try to release it under the old D20 license?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
should Nick reconsider his game plan as well?
It certainly might help him get a product out the door faster.
But his is a different business model. All printing of Razor Coast are POD, thus there's no generic printed version and supplemental pdfs. He has three times the design to do, and three times the layout, but once that's done, a customer who purchases SW, or PF, or 3.5 will never have to deal with additional documents. They'll just have a print copy and a pdf of the system of their choice. That's not the same thing that Goodman is proposing.
Isn't it against the GSL to release a 4e product under a different system? Or is that only if you try to release it under the old D20 license?
Goodman doesn't necessarily use the GSL to release their 4E modules. Note that (in the U.S.) you can't copyright the rules to a game, so writing a module that uses 4E rules isn't necessarily a copyright violation.*
*This advice is for entertainment purposes only. Consult an attorney if you suffer a legal problem lasting more than four hours.
It certainly might help him get a product out the door faster.
As sad as it is to say, that is the biggest deterrent why I haven't chipped in a dollar to anything that's pre-order. There are people more patient than I.
Isn't it against the GSL to release a 4e product under a different system?
Yes, but if you're intelligent about it, you can produce material that supports 4E without actually accepting the terms of the GSL.
It's confusing, but the GSL is a marketing tool that allows you to identify your product directly with WOTC's game. What Goodman and other publishers figured out early on is that you can write a product that can be used with 4E without actually directly adopting the GSL.
Edit: Ninja'd by hogarth, whose explanation is probably more straight forward.
And yeah
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
My gut feeling is that Goodman needs to support one system or the other, or produce different material for each. The current suggestion just seems noncommittal and capricious and like it would be more trouble than it's worth for designers, developers, marketing, and the end user.Let me try something here. Nicolas Logue (yes, THAT Nick) will be releasing his Sinister Adventure lineup in multiple systems:
From the Dark Vista mega-adventure:
Purchase a print edition of this Dark Vista and get PDFs configured for multiple game systems for free. Purchase a PDF and get addtional PDFs compatible with other game systems for free as well.
Preorder your copy of Razor Coast today! You choose between OGL 3.5, Pathfinder Compatible, or Savage Worlds compatible print versions when we ship - you get PDFs of all of them for free!
I can tell you, from personal experience, that Savage Worlds makes 3.x, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th edition look like genetic triplets. There are, for example, no hitpoints in SW. Following the above argument, should Nick reconsider his game plan as well?
My understanding is that Nick's plan is to have complete separate versions of the settings, one for each system. You get the hard copy of your selected version, as well as PDFs for any other system made. It's not the generic stuff in the hard copy, and download separate stats for your preferred system. This way, a PRPG encounter could have 4 orcs using PRPG state, the 4E could have 4 orc spearchuckers and 4 orc minions, the savage worlds version could have 8 orcs with SW stats, etc. Each version could have separate notes on how to run the encounter, treasure found, etc.
Also, while I'm eagerly awaiting Razor Coast to become available, it's worth noting that Nick hasn't actually produced this yet, much less separate versions for separate systems, so we don't know what his end product(s) will look like, and how different they will be.
Finally, while either the Goodman Games proposal or Sinister Adventures model could work, I'm guessing that the system used for the initial design will have a large influence on how the final product turns out for other systems. If this is the case, I would only really want products that were initially designed for Pathfinder, or possibly 3.5 at this point, since I would have concerns that a product designed for 4E and then converted wouldn't be as strong for other systems.
Let me try something here. Nicolas Logue (yes, THAT Nick) will be releasing his Sinister Adventure lineup in multiple systemsthis is almost as funny as your earlier new Necromancer products comment
Please. Don't. My sides. They hurt. Must supress the guffaws. :P
Hi this is Louis Porter Jr.. I have commented on this on this topic at my blog, In the Mind of Mad Man, due to the fact that I didn't think it appropriate to use that type of graphic language on this forum.
|
|
Hi this is Louis Porter Jr.. I have commented on this on this topic at my blog, In the Mind of Mad Man, due to the fact that I didn't think it appropriate to use that type of graphic language on this forum.
nice...very nice
|
|
Hi this is Louis Porter Jr.. I have commented on this on this topic at my blog, In the Mind of Mad Man, due to the fact that I didn't think it appropriate to use that type of graphic language on this forum.
Comment left for your approval, Louis.
In response to cibet44 and louis - completely agree. A few months ago he was all sunshine and roses about how 4E was the one true way, the pot at the end of the rainbow... now he starts jumping on the pf bandwagon.
I'm of the opinion that maybe... MAYBE if he put out a pure PF product and not some half-ass joke of a product with a crap load of conversion necessary I MIGHT consider purchasing it.
In reality I'd love it if he did put out some pure PF products but you can bet your a.. ahh posterior that I'm not going to go around promoting his products. He'd have to get on the PF bandwagon pretty full force before I'd start thinking positively of their stuff again.
And Louis, you said it better than I could. As soon as I read that post of his I started fuming and wanted to compose something like what you did though I didn't have the best information easily at hand.
Comment left for your approval, Louis.
APPROVED!
I agree with Yoda, the game philosophies are too different. You would have to have more than just different stat blocks, the pacing of encounters and is completely different. The mixed 3.5/4e stuff in KQ is generally good for one system and a passable hack at best in the other.
Personally, third party modules are a very tough sell in general and products that are designed for 4e and back-ported to Pathfinder hold little interest to me.
Thanks for the chuckle about Logue releasing Razor Coast for multiple gaming systems... he hasn't even managed to release it for ONE system yet let alone multiple.
Let's not turn this into a big version flame war.
Whether Goodwin made a bad call on supporting 4e or not is irrelevant. The real question is "Will his product be a good fit for Pathfinder RPG."
From what I've seen mixed system releases don't work. Maybe Goodman can pull it off... I am skeptical.
Hi this is Louis Porter Jr.. I have commented on this on this topic at my blog, In the Mind of Mad Man, due to the fact that I didn't think it appropriate to use that type of graphic language on this forum.
sounds like ya got it right to me
also I think yoda has the right of it. I would never buy anything in print only to have half a product.
I thought this post was good, too:
I think that an adventure that includes stats for several different games is doomed to failure, simply because it becomes such a bad read. Game books need to be literature as well as good games, or they will never catch the attention of the potential DM.
Having to skip over bits of text I'm not interested in (or alternately, having to flip to an appendix to find bits of text I'm interested in) is a hassle.
Let's not turn this into a big version flame war.
Yes, please.
|
|
I bought a ton of the DCCs and used many either whole (rarely) or cannibalized (mostly) back in my 3.5 days. I thought they were quality products, better than 75% of the market and up there with GR and NG and Paizo. From what I understand, the adventure set up and pacing is radically different in 4th ed than it was in 3.5/is in PRPG, so I don't see how an adventure paced for 4th ed can be made to work with PRPG, and vice versa. I know many have claimed success converting PRPG APs to 4th ed, so it's not entirely impossible, but I have my doubts.
In any case, all such adventures by their nature would be restricted in the types of foes encountered. "Orc" or "Red Dragon" would work for both, but any other monster would have to be extant in both systems, and new monsters would have to be dual-statted. Same goes for magical treasure as well.
So having said that, throw me in the camp of "PRPG or Bust". Release two versions of the same adventure (PRPG versions can be backward compatible enough to cover Pathfinder and 3.x ed), or nothing.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Let's not turn this into a big version flame war.Yes, please.
For what it's worth, I didn't intend my comment above to be inflammatory. I don't think you were calling me out specifically, but several people have expressed agreement with me, so I wanted to make sure.
I think that the more support Pathfinder as a system gets, the better. I just don't think the proposed plan from Goodman is the way to do it.
Hi this is Louis Porter Jr.. I have commented on this on this topic at my blog, In the Mind of Mad Man, due to the fact that I didn't think it appropriate to use that type of graphic language on this forum.
I'm so glad I didn't have a mouthful of Pepsi when I read your blog post. And I agree with you, for the record. :)
Robert
4 Winds Fantasy Gaming
Says the man with the firebreathing avatar.Let's not turn this into a big version flame war.Yes, please.
Hey. I'm Blazej. If I was Frostej I would have chosen a different avatar. :P
For what it's worth, I didn't intend my comment above to be inflammatory. I don't think you were calling me out specifically, but several people have expressed agreement with me, so I wanted to make sure.
I was just having the slight concern that the thread was sliding into a "lets beat on Goodman" zone. Not enough for me to run around flagging posts, but enough so that I was worried about a fight breaking out.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think this is a good idea in theory, but in implementation it would require some really skilled design. I'm not saying Goodman doesn't employ writers who could rise to the challenge, but I also think that simply saying "same adventure, different stats" is underestimating what will actually go into the process.
4e adventures and 3.5/Pathfinder adventures tend to have very different feels to them, especially in terms of tactics, how skills and roleplay situations are handled, and what resources PCs have at different levels. And a generic "orc, 6 hp, etc." entry in a print book isn't going to be as universal as Goodman indicates, since hp vary widely over different challenge ratings between systems. Even the CR range is different between them, and some monsters that can be handled by 5th level PCs in one system are much more or less challenging in the other.
I think that's a valid initial reaction... but it also implies to some extent that you're designing an adventure to feel "right" for one system and then forcing it into another system... or perhaps you're Frankensteining up something that tries to do both. Both of those things are going to be difficult to do well. But I think that someone creative enough may be able to come up with a different tack that makes it work. Take Necromancer's "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel," for example. If that evolved into "Your favorite rules, 1st Edition feel," you can perhaps see what I mean.
Actually, I think that specific example has a lot going against it—namely, that a lot of the folks who want a 1st-Edition feel are still *playing* 1st Edition, or OSRIC... but the point is, if you come up with a unique approach that's more concerned with being its own thing than feeling like "a 4E adventure" or a "Pathfinder RPG adventure," you may be able to pull it off. But you'd pretty much have to recognize that you probably wouldn't appeal to the people who *like* the 4E feel or the Pathfinder RPG feel—you'd be appealing to the people who like the *mechanics* of one or the other, but don't care about the established *feel* of them. You'd be creating your own niche, and the potential size of that niche may or may not be large enough to support you.
For what it's worth, I didn't intend my comment above to be inflammatory. I don't think you were calling me out specifically, but several people have expressed agreement with me, so I wanted to make sure.Let's not turn this into a big version flame war.Yes, please.
ACK! no, I agree with most everything you said.
|
|
I agree with Vic there to a point. I am not a huge fan of DDC's in the first place. Same with really Necro even though i post a ton on their site. Mostly cause i am not a huge fan of the classic dungeon crawl feel both companies to a point went for. Some of their good ones I liked I tend to really like a lot though.
Marketing a PFRPG and classic DnD adventure that does both rules systems and caters to the 1st edtion feel I think might work well. I think more of the people playing the old ones would be interested but I think some playing PFRPG or even 4e might buy some.
SO the question is if they cater to the classic dungeon crawl, can they pick up enough 4e fans and PFRPG fans along with those that are truly into classic DnD to make it worth it. I mean Necro and Goodman both proved during 3e days there was enough people, so i think with the right marketing they might be able to pull it off.
I am honestly more curious WHY J Goodman is thinking along these lines. My guess is due to the DDI that 3pp stuff just isn't doing all that well for 4e regardless how well 4e is doing but thats just a guess.
I was just having the slight concern that the thread was sliding into a "lets beat on Goodman" zone. Not enough for me to run around flagging posts, but enough so that I was worried about a fight breaking out.
Exactly. I'd love to see Goodman make product for Pathfinder and personally don't care that they support 4e also. What I'm not interested in is Hand-me-down products written for 4th edition and ported back.
|
|
I am honestly more curious WHY J Goodman is thinking along these lines.
That's the gist of the discussion over at EN World. Personally, I assume it's a business decision and leave it at that. (Reaction from Louis of LPJ Design on the boards here, though, was priceless. ^_^)
I was just having the slight concern that the thread was sliding into a "lets beat on Goodman" zone. Not enough for me to run around flagging posts, but enough so that I was worried about a fight breaking out.
LPJ is handling that well enough on his blog, methinks. :)
However, I think something isn't quite right. Joe Goodman's comments only a few months ago and these new ones seem to be at odds a bit.
I was just having the slight concern that the thread was sliding into a "lets beat on Goodman" zone. Not enough for me to run around flagging posts, but enough so that I was worried about a fight breaking out.LPJ is handling that well enough on his blog, methinks. :)
However, I think something isn't quite right. Joe Goodman's comments only a few months ago and these new ones seem to be at odds a bit.
Anyone can have a change of heart, even if they do suffer from foot-in-mouth syndrome. After all, weren't these previous comments that people are referring to made before the finalized PFRPG core book was even released. I mean, no one was sure what the sales of the new book were going to be like, least of all the 3pp's.
Anyone can have a change of heart, even if they do suffer from foot-in-mouth syndrome. After all, weren't these previous comments that people are referring to made before the finalized PFRPG core book was even released. I mean, no one was sure what the sales of the new book were going to be like, least of all the 3pp's.
I don't mind a change of heart. Anyone can have that. I DO MIND when you attempt revisionist history on something you know isn't true.
|
I am a huge fan of the DCC modules, still trying to track down the rare modules for my collection... I stopped getting them once they switched to 4e. From what I have been hearing (reading) 4e will be finishing up soon (a few years)? PFRPG and over systems seem to be getting accepted into the main stream and hear for a while... maybe Goodman thinking for the sustainable future?
Just my random thoughts.