|
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.
Whatever the reason, what do you think of Goodman's idea? Would you buy such a product?
I think he hitched his horse to the wrong wagon, personally, and I've already written him off for his overzealous support for 4E. I'm sorry to say I feel the same way about Sinister Adventures, though for different reasons (vaporware products and me preordering almost 2 years ago w/ nothing to show for it). Necromancer Games completes the trifecta for me. Another bungled, fence-sitting fiasco (all these years waiting for Slumbering Tsar...and we get the 1st one in pdf only, w/ no guarantees for the rest of the trilogy).
I think I'm done w/ 3rd party products in general.
Wow. I guess I'm a bit bitter, aren't I? Feels good to get that off my chest though.
EDIT: Joela, you posted before I could read your post. I think it's a terrible idea, even if I was still a neutral party. Sounds like I'm not alone.
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.
Here is something I think, perhaps if Goodman went the Green Ronin way with Freeport (statless modules with stats sold as PDFs for those that really want them) I'd give them a second look. Until then, forget it.
|
I'm just shaking my head. To me it seems like Goodman isn't receiving the same kind of success with 4e that they did under 3e and now they're trying to back out of the decision they made.
It's understandable.
4e alienated a lot more people then 3e ever did and there's a huge clump of players just not buying anything 4e.
On another hand, there's also the wotc loyalty shoppers. Loyalty shoppers really fall into two groups of people; fanboys and core rules only. Nothing wrong with either, but I think there are more loyalty shoppers playing 4e then anyone else. A lot of the people that accepted third party product in 3e I know have bailed on 4e, either before or after getting the core books for a D20 spin-off or are playing either 3.5e or a "3.75."
Myself, I stopped purchasing 4e after the Forgotten Realms supplements came out. I hated what I saw, knew the campaign I was playing in wasn't going to last (it didn't) and had no incentive (lack of additional Realms books, even though I hated what they did to 4e Realms) to continue buying 4e books. On top of all that, I never checked out the Goodman Games monster hardcover because when I was interested in 4e, WOTC was putting out enough monster stats through free DDI that I never found myself without stats for an Orc or Goblin or whatever of whatever level I needed (not to mention monster stats are easy to making in 4e compared to 3e.)
So what do I think they should do? I think they should pick one system or create their own. Regardless of what they do I think they're going to find GENERIC third party publishing isn't what it used to be.
|
|
Everyone keeps mentioning Freeport by Green Ronin, which is awesome, but the problem with it is it’s a completely different animal. Green Ronin’s success with it is that you can finally purchase a campaign setting book that will never change for the most part. If the game system you’re playing with changes you don’t have to worry about buying a new campaign book that really only offers the new mechanics and maybe a small change in the setting (exception being the new FR books). You really can’t do that with modules because they’re purely self contained and limited to the one story which as pointed out makes it hard adapt because each system is different. With Freeport the only thing that changes between systems is the NPCs and how the monsters are stated out, but don’t have to worry about the story and fluff being impacted by those changes. Another aspect with modules would be the loot discovered which would require more balancing between systems and most likely would have to be completely different. I just don’t think the boat will float if Goodman goes this route.
I think his best move would be to do comparative sales and produce the same number of modules for each system and then see which products sale the most. Discover where the demand is and go with it. Doing it the way he’s talking in the end might alienate more customers do to poor product performance. If sales truly aren’t that great they don’t need the risk of losing more customers.
I’d also like to point out that seeing more campaign books designed like Freeport entering the market wouldn’t be a bad thing in my opinion. That reminds me I still need to pick up the d20 companion for it.
Whatever the reason, what do you think of Goodman's idea? Would you buy such a product?
I thought about doing something like this also. I would make you pay for the adventure but the "crunchy bit" -- stats (4E, 3.5, Pathfinder or whatever) would be for free or vice versa. But it never seem to set the way I really wanted to so I stayed away from it.
I guess it's interesting conjecture. Although I do like some of their products they have been such a 4e supporter (ie buying 3e books back for pennies off their products) I don't really care.
Goodman Games is in the "don't hold your breath for them" category.
Sigurd
And to be clear, this is not a dig at 4e. It is simply that I don't think they're a D20 company any more.
|
|
I really enjoyed Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics for 3.5. I bought almost 40 of them and a handful of other goodies. I would NOT buy anything 4e related that I could download Pathfinder updates for. Either it IS made for Pathfinder, or it is NOT made for Pathfinder. There is way too much good stuff available from Paizo for adventures to deal with a 4e conversion product. Why wouldn't I just convert the other 40 adventures I already own to Pathfinder then?
If they made Pathfinder exclusive material. I would buy it without a doubt. I am a sucker for a good adventure.
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.
No, the clause that forbid this WAS removed in the revision. Goodman may not even be using the GSL - I know that some of his releases are not - but even if he was, he's in the clear now as far as this aspect of the GSL goes.
|
|
Whatever the reason, what do you think of Goodman's idea? Would you buy such a product?I thought about doing something like this also. I would make you pay for the adventure but the "crunchy bit" -- stats (4E, 3.5, Pathfinder or whatever) would be for free or vice versa. But it never seem to set the way I really wanted to so I stayed away from it.
Oh? May I ask what went into the decision process? From a customer standpoint, I think it's a great idea: buy the systemless product (preferably dead tree edition) then log on the publisher's website to download the appropriate stat info. (A habit I've picked up from RPGA and PFS mods is having stat info separate from the mods. That way I can glance the setting info to my left with encounter info on my right.)
I'm not a publisher, though. There may be difficulties on your end that make business sense not to follow such a model. (The Paizo staff has, for example, explained more than once why they don't do AP compendiums or, rarely, reprints.)
Again, thanks for sharing!
I think there is some fuzzy memory going on. Whose is open to fact-checking.
As I *recall*, there were open license d20 products boiling out of the woodwork within the first six months to a year, especially adventures and rules supplements. (WotC was slow to release adventures, relying I presume on Dungeon as the primary source of official adventure sales.) Open license settings/alternative rules sets did take longer to come out, which I assume is what is being referenced to by the 'd20 variants multiply' starting in '05.
In my experience gamers have always played or at least supported multiple game systems. The economic down turn has taken its toll I am sure. In my heydey I supported material for HERO, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, D&D, Palladium and HackMaster all as 'primary' systems while diving into two or three dozen other game systems over the past 2 decades.
To make is idea work efficiently (be able to store the printed pages from the download) he would have to entertain some (presumably) very expensive book binding techniques - in other words, to make it really useful the adventures would have to incorporate those printed pages. Whether by page clips, a mini-binder in the back of the binding or what ever else, these would be crucial I think.
Oh? May I ask what went into the decision process? From a customer standpoint, I think it's a great idea: buy the systemless product (preferably dead tree edition) then log on the publisher's website to download the appropriate stat info. (A habit I've picked up from RPGA and PFS mods is having stat info separate from the mods. That way I can glance the setting info to my left with encounter info on my right.)
It was really about the player experience. 4E (to me) feel like more of a video game set-up (Run around, fight, heal up in the middle of combat to full strength, fight some more, rest & heal up) while 3.5 / OGL / Pathfinder has those elements but is not attempting to emulate that experience. 3.5 / OGL / Pathfinder is about creating a different experience which is a more "organic" feel than the 4E "Kill moster, get treasure" effect.
I'm not a publisher, though. There may be difficulties on your end that make business sense not to follow such a model. (The Paizo staff has, for example, explained more than once why they don't do AP compendiums or, rarely, reprints.)
The best part of the AP are they are build as stories to help introduce you to more of the setting. You are actually gaming in the "fluff" part of the setting. The more yo play the more you get involved with the setting. That is the strength of the AP. It is similar to what comic book companies do to read long term comics like Batman, Superman and Spiderman. You get pulled into their world and you learn more about them the longer you read the comics.
|
|
It was really about the player experience. 4E (to me) feel like more of a video game set-up (Run around, fight, heal up in the middle of combat to full strength, fight some more, rest & heal up) while 3.5 / OGL / Pathfinder has those elements but is not attempting to emulate that experience. 3.5 / OGL / Pathfinder is about creating a different experience which is a more "organic" feel than the 4E "Kill moster, get treasure" effect.
Huh. Interesting. Thanks!
The best part of the AP are they are build as stories to help introduce you to more of the setting. You are actually gaming in the "fluff" part of the setting. The more yo play the more you get involved with the setting. That is the strength of the AP. It is similar to what comic book companies do to read long term comics like Batman, Superman and Spiderman. You get pulled into their world and you learn more about them the longer you read the comics.
Didn't you do something like that through your Sidetrek Adventure Weekly? (And yes, I have both series. What happened to the line?)
|
Whatever the reason, what do you think of Goodman's idea? Would you buy such a product?
I will not buy a 4e product even if there is a free Pathfinder conversion PDF - I will not use my vote (money) to support 4e in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
I will consider buying a completely system neutral adventure from Goodman Games if there was an official Pathfinder (or 3.5) conversion PDF (because I am very familiar with their work). Honestly, though, I have a hard time believing that this is a good model - design and development of two vastly different systems seem's like a costly gamble.
Didn't you do something like that through your Sidetrek Adventure Weekly? (And yes, I have both series. What happened to the line?)
Yes I did. And Sidetrek Adventure Weekly 3: Empire of Tears .... well it is not pretty. Complete product development implosion. Maybe one day, but not soon.
|
|
Didn't you do something like that through your Sidetrek Adventure Weekly? (And yes, I have both series. What happened to the line?)Yes I did. And Sidetrek Adventure Weekly 3: Empire of Tears .... well it is not pretty. Complete product development implosion. Maybe one day, but not soon.
Sorry to hear that.
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.
Maybe, however I can see that, while he is getting good sales from his current modules, that there could be enough people playing other systems that he could be even more successful if he appeals more to those players as well.
Things, one wold hope, shouldn't have to be getting bad in order for one to start looking around to see if there is a better way to do something.
Although, I'm thinking that trying to support multiple systems would result in a reduction of quality in the adventure compared to adventures native to a single system.
If they went this route, I think I would be as likely to purchase the adventure to get stats for a monster (item, NPC, etc.) for several systems rather than for the adventure itself.
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.
Here's a blast from the past..
http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2009/06/really-funny-comment-on-joe- goodmans.html
And the link that is came from Goodman Games
...On another hand, there's also the wotc loyalty shoppers. Loyalty shoppers really fall into two groups of people; fanboys and core rules only. Nothing wrong with either, but I think there are more loyalty shoppers playing 4e then anyone else. A lot of the people that accepted third party product in 3e I know have bailed on 4e, either before or after getting the core books for a D20 spin-off or are playing either 3.5e or a "3.75."...
I cut it down, but the rest of your post is a good example, I think, of the fact that there really isn't any WotC loyalty, it's D&D loyalty, the same as it's always been. From the D&D fans who think 4E is a purer form of the game, WotC and 3PPs supporting 4E get their money, but they're going to have the same trouble Goodman is having here trying to figure out why everyone else isn't playing the one system.
I came into the hobby playing games like GURPs, Torg, Palladium, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, etc. D&D was just the game you played because everyone else played it. So, since I was raised to the reality that there are other games out there, I can't say I can be all that sympathetic to complaints about the hegemony of one single game dissolving.
That said, I don't know about the 4E side of things, but I thought Alluria did an excellent job with their Remarkable Races for Pathfinder. I'm not even sure which edition came first, they definitely seem like Pathfinder products. Yeah, adventures and what would be a lot more challenging to convert and publish as separate items, but Alluria has set the bar for me as a customer as to what I expect from publications for both systems. I'm not required to download anything extra, I have a complete product attuned to my system of choice and most importantly, I'm not expected to foot the bill for x number of pages I won't use. Printing is expensive, but so is buying books.
|
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 agree. I was a fan of Goodman products until the multiple instances of "foot-in-mouth syndrome" turned me away. A company's attitude makes a big difference in who I support. Which is really a shame, as they put out good products.
|
|
The other idea of continuing to produce 'native 4E' adventures while offering downloadable stats probably has a bit more merit, though I've no idea if it would be worth the effort or not. I don't see the harm in trying for one or two adventures though. Creating downloadable stats for Pathfinder shouldn't hurt sales of the 4E module and I suppose it might give Goodman an idea of how many harcore DCC fans there may be who don't play 4E but are still keen on the line.
I agree and, in fact, Goodman could do it now with his current 4e adventures. I have most of them and, while a bit bland, I wouldn't mind downloading stats for Pathfinder or even C & C.
|
First of all, I was never a HUGE fan of Goodman. Some good stuff, but not stuff to die for.
I read his remarks and the responses and, maybe I am not reading it right but my interpretation of his comments is that in 2008 Goodman was one of the few 3pp supporting WOTC D&D which would be 4e after all... His claim is that very few 3pp went with 4e like he did, which I think IS true. He then says that in 2009 Pathfinder pretty much splits the market in half between 4e and PFRPG. Again, not seeing anything really revisionist here at all.
I think a lot of the name calling and revisionist statements he made are misinterpretations of what he said. I see nothing of that nature. He frankly says he supported 4e when most others did not, and now the market has split with him not getting the market share he wanted.
So now he is asking for opinions on an idea to help his company.
I see nothing wrong what-so-ever. Certainly nothing to warrant the bile that has been delivered his way.
In regards to his question, no I would NOT support a product that attempts to hack together the two systems. As has been pointed out each game has a "feel" or flavor unique to it. These flavors are not really compatible and any game designer who is asking if such a thing would fly, makes me question his game design abilities.
LJP and Goodman and others, what I suggest is if you want to tap both markets (and if you want to make $$$ who doesn't?) you act as editors and publishers, establishing TWO lines of products. Rather than develop the products directly yourself, you respond to the niche that has been left open since the death of Dungeon and Dragon Magazines.
That is you publish adventures and articles written by the fans. Develop a website that caters to online content. Make adventures very affordable. Publish other authors online for less than printed materials.
Use your print product lines to farm out specific ideas to new authors who have managed to prove themselves (not many will- but you will have access to new ideas and methods no one else does). Limit these big print runs to a few choice projects.
Honest to the gods, if I had the time and financial resources to set it up, this is EXACTLY what I would have KromeDragon doing. Still might if I can find a way to do it from the road.
In fact I can see myself revising my own stated goals for KromeDragon. I wanted to create two APs of my own concept and design. New job makes that difficult to do such grand ideas. Had it not been for the job the ideas would have been done by now. So I am thinking of delaying the big ideas and go with easier small adventures and sidetreks for a while. Still unable to publish to the web for a while unfortunately (Unless anyone has a Mac laptop they want to donate to the cause).
Anyway, my idea to capture both markets is to capture that niche that has been unfilled for a couple of years now. Find amateur authors, publish their work rather than developing your own.
Didn't you do something like that through your Sidetrek Adventure Weekly? (And yes, I have both series. What happened to the line?)Yes I did. And Sidetrek Adventure Weekly 3: Empire of Tears .... well it is not pretty. Complete product development implosion. Maybe one day, but not soon.
Dude I loved those. Sorry to hear bad news about it.
consider me a cohort.
Batts
That is you publish adventures and articles written by the fans. Develop a website that caters to online content. Make adventures very affordable. Publish other authors online for less than printed materials.
Working on part of this, though your angle is certainly interesting Krome.
First of all, I was never a HUGE fan of Goodman. Some good stuff, but not stuff to die for.
I read his remarks and the responses and, maybe I am not reading it right but my interpretation of his comments is that in 2008 Goodman was one of the few 3pp supporting WOTC D&D which would be 4e after all... His claim is that very few 3pp went with 4e like he did, which I think IS true. He then says that in 2009 Pathfinder pretty much splits the market in half between 4e and PFRPG. Again, not seeing anything really revisionist here at all.
I think a lot of the name calling and revisionist statements he made are misinterpretations of what he said. I see nothing of that nature. He frankly says he supported 4e when most others did not, and now the market has split with him not getting the market share he wanted.
So now he is asking for opinions on an idea to help his company.
I see nothing wrong what-so-ever. Certainly nothing to warrant the bile that has been delivered his way.
The problem that I think you are not seeing is Mr. Goodman made SEVERAL comments in the past about 4E, why he was supporting it, how profitable it was and how small the Pathfinder market it. Now with this later comment, he does a complete 180 degree turn for his former position and acts like none of what he said happened. See that is the problem I am having with all this. You want to support Paizo and Pathfinder? Great! I would love to team up. I think we could make some great products. But Mr. Goodman put his foot in his mouth and embarrassed himself. No biggie. That happens to every (very often to me) just do me the common courtesy of admitting you might have been wrong and not like this was part of your "master plan" all along. That is what REALLY upset me. He could have done a “mi culpa” and this would have been all over and nothing important. But instead he choose and another route. That is what I wrote what I wrote. You reap what you sow, Mr. Goodman.
Personally I don’t think Mr. Goodman is a bad guy and I do wish him success. Why would I want his business to fail? There are not a lot of viable paper and pencil RPG publishers in the market and losing him would only make it smaller. I have been in well established LONG TERM disagreements with game publisher before (Gareth anyone?) so for me, my comment should not be any kind of shocking surprise. Even thought I respect the man, I just don’t like what and how he did it.
Now with all this said, I did this same thing that Mr. Goodman did with D20 Modern. And I had to do a “mi culpa” about it and over time no one really cared what I originally said. RPG Fans want MORE good products not less.
I really enjoyed Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics for 3.5. I bought almost 40 of them and a handful of other goodies. I would NOT buy anything 4e related that I could download Pathfinder updates for. Either it IS made for Pathfinder, or it is NOT made for Pathfinder. There is way too much good stuff available from Paizo for adventures to deal with a 4e conversion product. Why wouldn't I just convert the other 40 adventures I already own to Pathfinder then?
If they made Pathfinder exclusive material. I would buy it without a doubt. I am a sucker for a good adventure.
Sums up my opinion too.
Personally Im abit bothered by some posters here and at ENWorld for the negativity toward Goodman. Necromancer did the same with their initial planting of their flag in the 4E camp. So What.
If Goodman goes Pathfinder, Id buy their modules in a heartbeat. Id love to see the DCC stuff again, I still cant buy anything 4E though.
As an aside, A long while ago I emailed Joseph Goodman asking him if by any chance he had a lingering copy of Castle Whiterock laying around, and that id be willing to pay full price for it. He managed to find a dusty new copy in his warehouse and shipped it to me for $20 or so iirc. Might have been 20 + shipping, I forget. Joe is good people. :)
I wouldnt mind seeing New DCC PF modules from Harley Stroh, Adrian Pommier, and Mike Ferguson, etc.
<snip> That is what I wrote what I wrote. You reap what you sow, Mr. Goodman.
Not picking a fight but thats sad and a prime example of nerd rage.
"OMG! He went 4E and now hes thinking of possibly coming to my house! How dare he!?!" <---- doesnt this sound childish?
|
|
Some RPG Fans want MORE good products not less.
Exactly - so where are all those adventures you keep teasing us about?!? ;)
Exactly - so where are all those adventures you keep teasing us about?!? ;)
Well, if I could find a "good" cartographer that I could afford, then I chould have it done in days and weeks not months. or years.
If it's nerd rage then it's the best kind of nerd rage. It's a 3PP nerd raging against another. :)
Damn Skippy!
My general impression is this concept will work if you develop for pathfinder, then simplify and modify for 4E. In other words develop a module based on the more complex system, then tweek for the more generic. A couple proof of concept modules should give you a clear indication.
Perhaps, have a 4E appendix, to perform the necessary conversions.
I was never a strong supporter of goodman games, and hold no judgements against him, but a good idea (adventure) could very easily be applied to both systems.
I'm not really interested in Goodman Games' products. Despite admiring them, I never actually purchased a single DCC module. Since "the Rant" I have less reason to be interested at all, though I never blamed him for going 4E.
That said, I *do* think this is a good idea. Considering how often I print out the stats for Paizo's AP's (easier to write on during battle), and even read the whole module in PDF, I could see this being a perfectly usable format for me.
|
|
I see your point there LJP. I'm just the sort of person that goes "Oh well, so what" at these kinds of things. While I may find it annoying it doesn't actually hurt me so I don't care enough to waste my energy being upset about it.
That is just me.
Glad some of you liked the idea I had about editing/publishing others. I was planning on going that route, even got a few adventures submitted but then I got a job that keeps me on the road and with little spare time. So everything came to a grinding halt.
Right now, the most I could do is update a website once a month (at MOST) with new adventures and articles. And that seriously sucks. Though honestly with the Pathfinder SRD online and my new iPhone I might be able to a little more work than I could before.
Still looking for a donation of a MacBook :)
I see your point there LPJ. I'm just the sort of person that goes "Oh well, so what" at these kinds of things. While I may find it annoying it doesn't actually hurt me so I don't care enough to waste my energy being upset about it.
That is just me.
My wife is the same way and I am a very luck man. It's good to also know that people are passionate about Paizo and Pathfinder.
OffT: I for one appreciated Mr Porter's frankness. Sometimes, it's a relief to hear others vent what one was thinking one's self, and I'd had my fill of editorial comments on the State of the Industry. Chalk me up as one who enjoyed the appearance of a new Joe on the block.
OnT: DCCs were kind of hit and miss with me. I guess I'm not really one who buys into GG's interpretation of what made "old school" gaming great, so perhaps I'm not in the target audience. But sure: you wave a Drow adventure and an Egyptian adventure in front of me and I'll probably produce the desired Pavlovian response (I did). I think the only other one that I really might want is SKR's module with the soundtrack.
How many more adventure publications can the Pf market take at this point? I don't have the answer to that question, but it would seem to be crucial to the question at hand.
|
|
OffT: I for one appreciated Mr Porter's frankness. Sometimes, it's a relief to hear others vent what one was thinking one's self, and I'd had my fill of editorial comments on the State of the Industry. Chalk me up as one who enjoyed the appearance of a new Joe on the block.
agreed wholeheartedly!
I think the only other one that I really might want is SKR's module with the soundtrack.
If you're talking about THIS one, Wes Schneider wrote it - I had him sigh it! I also own the original art from the first page!
How many more adventure publications can the Pf market take at this point? I don't have the answer to that question, but it would seem to be crucial to the question at hand.
I for one would buy more...
OffT: I for one appreciated Mr Porter's frankness. Sometimes, it's a relief to hear others vent what one was thinking one's self, and I'd had my fill of editorial comments on the State of the Industry. Chalk me up as one who enjoyed the appearance of a new Joe on the block.agreed wholeheartedly!
I think the only other one that I really might want is SKR's module with the soundtrack.If you're talking about THIS one, Wes Schneider wrote it - I had him sigh it! I also own the original art from the first page!
How many more adventure publications can the Pf market take at this point? I don't have the answer to that question, but it would seem to be crucial to the question at hand.I for one would buy more...
Yeah, Wes is who I meant. So, you're welcome for the opportunity to correct and brag at the same time!
As I look at my growing collection of Paizo stuff, and plan future subscriptions and purchases, I'm not sure about how much more I would buy. When I buy outside the fold, it is usually something very niche: I bought SuperGenius's Shaman, D5's Japanese ghost adventure, I'll buy Dario di Nardi's stuff at some point, etc. (I bought Adamant's stuff just because it was such an incredible deal that I decided to take a chance on it.) I guess for someone to add to my planned expenditures on gaming, if they want to attract dollars in addition to those that I commit to my favorite folks, they have to produce something that really stands out in some way and appeals to my specific druthers. I'd hate to be the guy who tried to figure out what those were, and are there enough of me to make some money, God bless'em. (Now, people who can figure out how to feed my miniature addiction are sure to make some money off of me...)
|
|
So, getting back to the OP, thumbs up for the idea? Down? Or still indecisive?If it's nerd rage then it's the best kind of nerd rage. It's a 3PP nerd raging against another. :)Damn Skippy!
I'm against it, the encounter system isn't even the same. Resource management sure isn't.
3x/D20 creatures are based off the party.
4e creatures are based off individual characters.
Thus in 4e you could have an encounter clearly designed to have the party out numbered (but not overpowered) with say 10 monsters. In 3e, if you use the same monster, you'd find your party overpowered by 3 or 4 of the same monster.
Since we are back on topic again, I wanted to point out the Legend of the Five Rings setting and source books, some of which were published as two separate books and some of which were dual-statted for both d20 and AEG's own system. I thought the dual-statted books were fine, and I am sure some of the people posting here have used them before. If done right, a module or source book containing stats for two systems should be fine and work well, and if not done right if would be a horrible mess and failure.
|
|
Since we are back on topic again, I wanted to point out the Legend of the Five Rings setting and source books, some of which were published as two separate books and some of which were dual-statted for both d20 and AEG's own system. I thought the dual-statted books were fine, and I am sure some of the people posting here have used them before. If done right, a module or source book containing stats for two systems should be fine and work well, and if not done right if would be a horrible mess and failure.
Actually 99% of those books were d20 Rokugan done by WotC or 3PPs and not AEG. Completed before AEG bought or fully aquired the license from WotC. L5R itself was never dual stated. Basically WotC used the world as a d20 setting for OA and that was it. The upside was they introduced tons of people to the actual L5R game system as well as the CCG, which is what AEG really thrives on. L5R has its own 4e coming out this year which I'm excited to see, but a little disappointed in as AEG just released 3e revised about two years ago. I will do as I did with 3e and just pick up the core rules and the Creature book. I miss playing the CCG, having stopped during Lotus which was two editions ago.
Getting back on topic though, the books were somewhat effective in what they offered, but as I mentioned they tended to mainly work as an introduction to another system as players decided to try out the other system to see if there was a difference. In L5R's case there was a major difference between d20 and it; the roll and keep mechanic is definitely a lot more fitting in a setting where one sword swing could kill someone.