• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

[3.x/PfRPG/4E] Goodman Games looking to Expand beyond 4E

Aesthete

A for Aeffort
Validated User
Dual (or more) statted modules move down a few notches on my to-buy list, generally. I want all the work to be done, I want the module tailored to the specific system I'm running it with and I don't want to be distracted by other stats.

Another and big part of my purchasing decision is based on aesthetics, and dealing with a downloaded patch of stats is not ideal unless it's very very well produced.

That's my initial reaction as a consumer.
 

komradebob

Registered User
Validated User
What's your feelings about such a plan? It's generating a lot of heated debates over at EN World and Paizo.
FWIW, I buy "Savaged" versions of other games because Savage Worlds is one of my goto systems. I picked up SW Mars and Thrilling Tales and was very pleased with both. I'd looked at both previously and had skipped by their earlier incarnations because I didn't feel like buying a new system and learning it.

I have no interest in 4e, but I do occasionally buy and play TSR era, D&D compatible stuff still.

It seems like making multiple versions could give you some long-tail sales, but probably shouldn't be your main priority. I'd also make them PDF only or POD at most.

The only real problem I'd see for you is that 4e is waaaay more minis centric than earlier editions, especially TSR era editions, which means that work you might do to make an encounter more interesting in 4e would be kinda pointless except in very broad terms for pre- 3e versions.
 

blah & meh

Retired User
This sort of comment implies that the "split" is somehow close to even, which is laughable.
No, of course it's not even, but you can say "split" without meaning 50-50. The notion of a split can't be all that laughable, else why is Goodman thinking about ways to attract 3e players?
 

Eryops

Level five vegan
Validated User
The only real problem I'd see for you is that 4e is waaaay more minis centric than earlier editions, especially TSR era editions, which means that work you might do to make an encounter more interesting in 4e would be kinda pointless except in very broad terms for pre- 3e versions.
That's a great point. Usually, there's a point in an adventure where you can *almost* cut and paste encounters between systems (I've inserted WFRP2 encounters into modules from several other systems with little difficulty). With 4e, the waters are muddier with more things that need to be taken into account.
 

Dabbler

Retired User
On the other hand, they could just have a 4e adventure design team, a Pathfinder adventure design team, and an "Other" adventure design team. Occasionally the teams collaborate (it'd be like a cross-over in the comic books!), but for the most part, the different teams do what they do separately. Maybe some general plot threads are used across all three, but for the most part, you just have your separate teams, and you CLEARLY label which product goes with what.
Small companies don't have the kind of staffing levels required for this kind of thing - and the idea is to increase market appeal without increasing costs by anything like so significant a margin.

That's a great point. Usually, there's a point in an adventure where you can *almost* cut and paste encounters between systems (I've inserted WFRP2 encounters into modules from several other systems with little difficulty). With 4e, the waters are muddier with more things that need to be taken into account.
As a non-4e player, I can't understand why that would be. Sure, I can see the need to include tactical maps (most modules do anyway) and to vary the 'strength' of the encounter, include stat-blocks from different systems etc. but why would 4e be so hard to factor in?
 
Last edited:

migo

whORE
or from sources like Amazon (where the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook outsold the 4e core rulebooks for the tail end of 2009)
This is probably due to the fact that 4e is available everywhere, and you can pick it up in person, while Pathfinder isn't and people have to go looking for it. It's far more available online than in person, so it makes sense people would go to Amazon for it. I wouldn't think that's an indication that Pathfinder is any sort of competitor to 4e.
 

migo

whORE
As a non-4e player, I can't understand why that would be. Sure, I can see the need to include tactical maps (most modules do anyway) and to vary the 'strength' of the encounter, include stat-blocks from different systems etc. but why would 4e be so hard to factor in?
4e has some explicit encounter guidelines, rather than the more generic ones for other systems, so while you could have an adventure work for multiple non 4e systems, it might be exceedingly easy or have something else go wrong in 4e.
 

Dabbler

Retired User
4e has some explicit encounter guidelines, rather than the more generic ones for other systems, so while you could have an adventure work for multiple non 4e systems, it might be exceedingly easy or have something else go wrong in 4e.
Surely the logic should then be to design for 4e and then adapt to other systems rather than the other way around?

This is probably due to the fact that 4e is available everywhere, and you can pick it up in person, while Pathfinder isn't and people have to go looking for it. It's far more available online than in person, so it makes sense people would go to Amazon for it. I wouldn't think that's an indication that Pathfinder is any sort of competitor to 4e.
6% vs 75% is no competition either, I think I made that evident, and I also made clear that such 'pick up anywhere' sales may not be taken into account in the various stats. Pathfinder is NOT going to knock 4e off the top-spot any time soon if ever. However it's a bit like the Linux vs Windows situation, or Mac vs PC. The underdog is doing well enough that it is not going to go away, is generating significant sales and has to be taken into account. Now what WILL knock 4e off the top-spot will be 5e, and unless Wizards/Hasbro change their marketing strategy radically, I would expect to see this by around 2015 or shortly thereafter.

However, as mentioned, the question is not always what people are buying but what they are playing. No-one is buying 3.5 any more (well, not significantly anyway), as it isn't being printed, but like it or not a lot are still playing it. These are potential buyers for companies like Goodman that they don't want to miss out on.
 
Last edited:

migo

whORE
However, as mentioned, the question is not always what people are buying but what they are playing. No-one is buying 3.5 any more (well, not significantly anyway), as it isn't being printed, but like it or not a lot are still playing it. These are potential buyers for companies like Goodman that they don't want to miss out on.
The issue is it's a market that can only shrink. Eventually people will stop playing, and it's hard to bring new players in without the ability to buy rulebooks. Developing for 3.5 doesn't make much sense. Pathfinder is at least supported. It might be possible to do an adventure that's compatible with both because of their similarity, but publishing adventures for a game that's no longer printed seems like a losing proposition.
 

red_artifice

City Druid
The real question is whether the non-4e market is likely to buy modules at any rate worth the cost it takes to produce extra stats. Until that question is answered, it's non likely profitable to market to players of 3.anything.
 
Top Bottom