Goodman Games

guyz,

congrats on getting this thing out there:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/109995/An ... =FrontPage

it looks awesome! I like the Green demon guy. Reminds me of Otus artwork.

I'm a little confused as to who the author is though. On the cover, its says "by Goodman Games". I didn't know the folks at GG were the ones behind it. Did this get picked up by the company at some point?

I hope to be able to order a print version at some point... is that going to happen!?!?

Where does it say its by Goodman Games? Mine says its compatible with DCC RPG

I'll agree that the line on the cover could've been laid out better to less misleading...

"For DCC RPG

By Goodman Games"

well I got the impression that it was goodman games because it says
"by goodman games"

and its centered on the page like you'd expect where the author of the book to be. I'm not sure where on the cover it says who its by. Maybe on the far lower right corner there's something but I'm not sure what...

"A PATRONS SUPPLEMENT FOR THE DUNGEON CRAWL CLASSICS ROLE PLAYING GAME BY GOODMAN GAMES"

What I see is:
A PATRONS SUPPLEMENT FOR THE DUNGEON CRAWL CLASSICS ROLE PLAYING GAME
***************************BY GOODMAN GAMES

"*" is for formatting purposes, its empty space on the book cover.

Part of it is just a result of the complete line (A Patrons Supplement for the Dungeon Crawl Classic Roleplaying Game by Goodman Games) being justified centre on the cover. I don't see it as confusing, however, as it also clearly displays the "compatible with DCC" logo right next to the subheader and in terms of trade dress looks nothing like a Goodman product.

The real ambiguity comes from the complete line itself, where "by Goodman Games" could be read as referring to the "Dungeon Crawl Classics Roleplaying Game" (as was obviously intended) OR referring to "A Patrons Supplement yadda yadda" (which is what dark cauliflower assumed). Not the best sentence admittedly, but combined with the different trade dress, different publisher's logo (and lack of GG's one) and compatibility logo I very much doubt many folks would be confused.

Colin

Sorry, I just dont see the confusion. I didnt think it was written by Goodman Games. I thought just what it said- its a supplement for DCC RPG by Goodman Games.

Me neither.

The sentence, without punctuation, can be construed to be an ambiguous one depending on where you place your emphasis. To explain, let me demonstrate by showing the two places emphasis could be placed using a comma (and how it dramatically changes meaning):

A Patrons Supplement, for the Dungeon Crawl Classic Roleplaying Game by Goodman Games.

This first example implies (correctly) that the book is a patron supplement, and that it is specifically for the DCC RPG created by GG.

A Patrons Supplement for the Dungeon Crawl Classic Roleplaying Game, by Goodman Games.

This second example implies (incorrectly) that it's a patron supplement for the DCC RPG and that it's the supplement that's created by Goodman Games.

Given a lack of punctuation, the emphasis of a given sentence is not always clear (and can have different meanings). It's a funny thing, but while most folks will read it one way (the former) others will read it as the latter (as dark cauliflower demonstrated). We actually did part of a unit on ambiguity in sentences in my BA (Hons) Publishing Studies, and once you see how one sentence can be interpreted in different ways, you start to notice them everywhere.

Here's a classic example (one sentence, two meanings) of the sort of thing I mean:

The lady hit the man with an umbrella. Is the lady using an umbrella to hit or is she hitting a man who is carrying an umbrella?

All this said, between trade dress, different publisher logo, the display of the compatibility logo, and a lack of GG promoting the item at all, it's only going to momentarily confuse a few people at most.

cheers!
Colin

The book is not by Goodman Games, nor was there any attempt to make it seem so.

If you purchased the book, either through the Indiegogo or through one of the sites now selling it (DriveThru, RPG Now), the publisher is clearly indicated.

Sorry if this has caused anyone any confusion.

Daniel

I wouldn't worry, mate; while the sentence can be read two different ways, it's still very clearly not a GG product, and I very much doubt anyone thinks the ambiguity was remotely deliberate. Like I said, the number of folks who might be confused for more than a moment really isn't worth bothering about. I was simply pointing out the two ways in which the sentence could be read, to explain why dark cauliflower asked the question.

Colin