Quote from: Joseph GoodmanHi 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. There are certain economics required in publishing modules, but as long as those economics are met by satisfying one or two larger systems, it may be possible to support more than one system.

And as a final side note, tell me what you think of Dungeon Alphabet. This is the book I spent a year working on as a side project, just to stay in touch with my inner grognard. If there's still a market for old-school imagery -- as evidenced by sales on Dungeon Alphabet -- this remains another option for the DCC line or other projects.

Thanks,
Joseph

Quote from: Louis Porter JrSounds like the 4E gravy train has slowed: Goodman Games may support The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game?
 
I saw this over at Paizo's boards and I have to just say it, this is totally revisionist history BULLSHIT! After telling everyone how good sale are with 4E, you NOW want to support Pathfinder? OK, let's take this one step at a time...

"2001-2004: 80%+ of RPG'ers were playing 3E. "

OK This is true.

"2004-2005: Some gamers fell off between 3E and 3.5, but still 75% playing 3.5. "

OK this is true.

"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)."

This is true and don't forget you are part of this group who wanted to develop your own D20 variant system. Does Wicked Fantasy Factory, Etherscope, DragonMech or Xcrawl ring a bell?

"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."

I am sorry but WTF?!?!??!?!?! Only "D20 Company" still primarily supporting WotC D&D. Joseph, I respect you as a business man and gamer, but that is complete bullshit and you know it. When you heard about 4E you we down with WOTC quicker than a $2 whore. Looks like some revisionist history bullshit to me.

"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). "

...And with that split, Paizo got support from several third party publishers who saw that Paizo did actually like it customers and third party publishers. What a crazy concept. Anyone willing to sign the 1st GSL? Anyone?

"2010: What's a module publisher to do?"

Well I supported 3.5 and then Paizo and Pathfinder, so I don't have to ask this question. I just put out product.

"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."

CRAP!! See this is the part that makes me laugh, those people were playing those systems back then in 2004 too. It is just you were making so much money with 3.5 you didn't care about them. Now that 4E didn't make the splash that you planned on and committed your entire company's future to, you have to do some back pedaling to keep that cashflow going.

"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."

I think you made a mistake by supporting WOTC so early with 4E. I think you went full board with them trying to grab a section of the market. I think your sales were not what you expected, plus WOTC leaving RPGNow and the US recession didn't help Goodman's cashflow. 2010 looks a lot different then you though it would in 2007. I think it is a good thing long term for the industry if Goodman Games supports Paizo and Pathfinder. But don't give me this revisionist history bullshit. You made a business decision, supported someone and it didn't work out as you planned. Now you have changed your mind and want to make some money supporting something else. Stop trying to put a spin doctor on this and just be truthful on this. We have all made mistakes on who or what we supported in business, including me. Build a bridge and get over it. Talk to you later...

Quote from: Aos;353242It seems like a smart move to me to change your approach if your approach isn't working- or if you think another approach might work better for you. that's just good business. It doesn't matter to me,  I don't buy shit besides core rules and used stuff for a dollar on Amazon.
I give this about ten posts before it turns into another pointless vs. 4e argument.
Edit: Also it's hard to parse out the second quote, and I don't know who the dude is or why he's so torqued.

Quote from: LordVreeg;353251I am not one to call this backpedaling...I consider it a response to changing market conditions.

Quote from: One Horse Town;353259Louis Porter Jr is a joke - Goodman Games aren't.

Quote from: jeff37923;353276True.

Yet when the CEO of Goodman Games comes out a few months earlier declaring the economic viability of 4E third party products and citing his own business acumen as a source, then makes the statement that he is taking his company in a new direction, the irony meter does tend to redline hard.

Quote from: Aos;353282Well, there is a difference between what's going on with 4e and with what's going on with Goodman Games' 4e product.

Quote from: ggroy;353239He probably found out that being the "top dog" of 4E 3PP, isn't as good as it was during 3E/3.5E.

Quote from: T. Foster;353248The only thing surprising about this is that it's taken Goodman Games this long to come to this point -- everybody else was there in about 2005 (which is why we saw the multiplication of d20 variants that he mentions). My personal recommendation is that they license OSRIC and go full-bore old-school.