The DCC Cover Discussion Thread

[Treebore]

I assume the yellow corner changes were made due to customer feedback asking for clear labeling to clue them in better on what the content was. Whether it was 1E or 3E, or 3.5E, and now 4E.

I'll try to be a little clearer on why I don't like the new covers. Like I have posted before, I like the art, I just do not like how it is layed out on the covers. I do not even mind the change from the old style, even though I would have been fine with the continuity. I would prefer it if the art actually was "full cover", rather then this current look.

[JediOre]

You guys do know this thread is interfering with my homework. If my wife finds out I've been posting on this board in lieu of focusing upon reading about conscription during the Civil War, I'm in trouble deep!

Joseph, I'm dense. I truly have no clue what you are hinting at. However, I rarely figure out who did something in a mystery movie either so, I can't decide if you're being too clever or its my thickheadedness.

[Edit--It seems Treebore has a good idea here. The yellow stripe changed over time as customers and merchants requested clarification of the module line. Yes? No?]

[TheMilford]

Joseph,

Thanks for your patience and participation in this discussion. I need to stress that I mean everyhting I say but that I said it the way I did to express the raw emotion... hopefully to illustrate a few points. I'm really not that emotional about this, Just that when I commit I go full-bore.

Please understand when you suggest that we are overreacting about 'just covers' that it's a little insulting. You guys know that you set a mood, you knew your audience and you knew what aesthtic nerve you were massaging when you set about some years back. I can only hope us old-schoolers will have something in store for us in due-time... if that is what you seem to be getting at.

I would love to think that the forthcoming modules will become the 4E version of the DCC series and that at some point we will get somehting else in place of the old DCC line with something equally as "moody" as the originals.

In any case. I'm curious about the banner progression...

I assume there are licesning issues, WotC rules and guidelines. Or possibly a deal was struck with WotC that will allow more eventual flexibility once the 4E changeover dust has settles... I dunno.

the banner text get more specific to edition and game. I know based on your interviews that you will benefit from being able to print the actual "D&D" logo on the product by following the new 4E license.

Please tell me you will be launching a strictly 1E line

Cheers,
D

[goodmangames]

I assume the yellow corner changes were made due to customer feedback asking for clear labeling to clue them in better on what the content was.

Treebore's close. The yellow stripe is a history of the first two major cases of confusion in the marketplace as it relates to DCC modules. The first case was confusion about whether they were true reprints of TSR modules, which was when the blurb was changed to "All New Module For Any Fantasy Campaign." The second case was confusion over which modules were 3.0 vs. 3.5, which was when the blurb was changed to include "3.5 compatible like all DCC modules!"

Now we face the third possible situation of confusion in the marketplace. With 4E launching, and game stores still carrying backstock on 3.5 and in some cases 3.0 products, confusion in the marketplace is a very real concern. I am highly aware of this because marketplace confusion is very expensive for me. It costs money when mistakes are made. For example, a store that accidentally liquidates the wrong inventory because they misidentified what was 3.0 vs. 3.5. I've deliberately kept 1E modules out of the supply chain because I do not want to muddy the waters even more.

Some of you shop online, but many more gamers do not. In a game store there is not a handy link that says, "Rules Edition: 4E", nor is there a "search" function. You generally have one resource, which is the store employee. Thus the challenge for me: How to provide that store employee with all information necessary to avoid yet another case of marketplace confusion?

The answer: a very dramatic change in presentation. Trust me, the yellow stripe was not enough.

The change in DCC art has nothing to do with a preference for digital art, or a "slap in the face" to anyone, or an intent to draw new customers. It's a requirement of doing business. If the DCC series is to succeed under the 4E rules, the customer has to know which modules use which rules, and the only way to arm the store employee with that knowledge is a clear and obvious change in the cover design. There can be absolutely no chance of confusion over what's 4E and what's 3E. And this has to be true in the lowest-common-denominator store -- not Games Plus in Mt. Prospect, IL, where half the staff attends Gen Con, but at places like the Borders on Ponce de Leon Ave. in Atlanta, GA where my modules sit on a lonesome shelf surrounded by employees who think RPG's are something that Afghani rebels shoot at helicopters. The cover design has to be so very different, so completely different, that anyone can tell they're different from what came before.

JZavoda, you're drawing conclusions about my intent behind the change that are completely wrong. It's about keeping the DCC line viable in retail stores. You seriously think I'm delivering a "slap in the face" to old school? Who brought back Erol Otus? Who brought back Jim Holloway? Who hunted down Jim Roslof and hired him for his first professional gaming illustrations in decades? Who persuaded Jeff Dee to start doing module covers again? Who talked Diesel into re-creating some of his classic art? All the DCC knockoffs from other publishers that have appeared in the last couple years -- you think I haven't noticed the little cottage industry the DCC line spawned? I've done more to make "old school" viable than probably anyone else in this industry. And I'm thankful my work has created a secondary market for these classic artists, in the form of Expeditious Retreat and Pied Piper and the various other companies that have popped up. You think I'd have pulled all this off if people from "the honored past" didn't trust me? The fact that Otus, Roslof, Holloway, Dee, Diesel, Arneson, and others have all agreed to work with me -- after staying away from the industry for decades -- says volumes.

It should be obvious to everyone that I have a strong affection for old school dungeon crawling and the classic vein of adventure writing. But the look of the DCC line must change for it to succeed under 4E. Yet that in no way impacts what the old-school artists can work on in other lines. I'm currently in negotiations with someone who wants to publish 1E adaptations of the existing DCC backstock. I've been talking with some of the old-school artists about adaptations of the 4E modules. But there's one huge footnote on all of this: the 4E license, the GSL. There is still a lot to be resolved. Wizards has announced they are changing the GSL once again. Will that open up the possibility of 1E adaptations where now it does not exist? So much is still unclear that it's impossible to commit to anything at the moment.

To those of you who don't like the cover design for aesthetic reasons, send me your comments. Notes like Treebore's are constructive and well received. The look of the 4E modules will be changing, not in huge ways, but at Gen Con some things were obvious once we had printed books on a shelf for the first time -- not enough color, too much white space, etc.

To those of who don't like the cover design for nostalgia reasons, sit tight and calm down. I am frankly astounded at how much innuendo has been read into a simple change in cover art. Am I the only one on the planet who knows that sometimes there are sound legal and business reasons for not talking about everything that's going on? But based on a couple pieces of cover art you're assuming I'm throwing out five years of work? Otus, Roslof, Holloway, Dee, Diesel, and Arneson all trust me, but you guys don't? Seriously, calm down. Nobody runs game companies to make money. We all do it because we love it. It's hard to love it when reading some of the things that have been posted in this thread. I am not surprised that some folks object to the new design (change always brings disagreement), but I am surprised by how feral the response has been. You're not backed into a corner, no one is taking your bone. The bone is just out of the room for a little while until some things are worked out.

So give it time... don't make any permanent judgments yet... and just take it one day at a time. Sooner or later, Wizards will announce what they're finally doing with the GSL... and I'll know what my options are... and some of my negotiations will conclude... and maybe I'll be able to announce something that you guys find appealing. In the meantime, the DCC line will continue under 4E, with no marketplace confusion, and retailers will continue to stock Goodman Games products deeply, which is ultimately what keeps the company in business to continue producing quality work of any type in the future, including the 1E con specials that the Acaeum crowd loves so much.

[TheMilford]

Thanks Joseph,

That was above and beyond any answer I could have expected. I always though that the change could be a legal/business thing... but it's nice to know that you're still fighting the oldschool fight behind-the-scenes.

This makes me feel a whole lot better and very excited for the future of old-school gaming. Long live 1E!

I hope my feelings previously expressed helped instead of hurt.

Good night,
D

[Istor]

Wow... didn't realize some people were taking this so seriously.

Personally I dislike the new covers, but it's purely an aesthetic thing... my dirty little secret is that I'm going to buy them anyway because the content is some of the best out there. But I already know what to expect.

So constructive (hopefully) comments:

The biggest factor in marketing is emotional response. You've got to catch the potential customer's eye in some way. The new covers don't achieve that in my opinion. The old covers did; I didn't play 3e... and I almost did after seeing the DCC line simply from the cover. They created an emotional response and I was ready to buy. For me it was a nostalgia thing and that obviously doesn't work for everyone. I should point out though, that had I not been drawn in by the original style I probably would have skipped right past the GG booth rather than picking up one of everything. The new covers just aren't very attractive.

Ideally the covers would remain the same for me to be happy, but Joseph's explanation above really highlights why that's such a bad idea.

Since "aren't very attractive" isn't constructive I'll add my 2 cents... some of which is probably covered by others:

• * Too much white space. My biggest issue with the new covers is the layout, the art is squashed in the middle and the amount of whitespace makes the covers look unfinished. Seems like many people have this comment.
  
  * The "Dungeon Crawl Classics" at the top blends together too much. It needs to be more contrasting so that it pops out.
  
  * The number graphic suffers from not enough contrast as well. I can't put my finger on why, but the logo and the number graphic both just don't work for me.

Hmm that's about it.. Not much to complain about at all I guess. The art cover art on all three DCCs is nice, though squashed. The cover for Dragora's Dungeon looks good. It's not perfect but it's attractive. IMO it serves it's function much more than the new DCC style.

I don't mind the grey paper inside. I'm very happy with the map (and rooftiles) of Sellswords. It's more stylized than a lot of the stuff I use but it really works well. Overall once you're inside the covers these things were worth every penny. So I suppose my commets can be summarized as follows: "I'd like prettier covers but as long as the content stays at the level it is I'll be buying everything in the line regardless".


Some additional unsolicited comments (technically I solicited them from my wife, but you guys didn't).

She's a brand new gamer, having never played any edition of any RPG before 4e (ok I lie a little, she played an intro to D&D game 2 years ago at Gencon). I set out some of the old style modules, the new DCC line, and Dragora's Dungeon and asked her which appealed to her the most and the least.

"This one" pointing to the old style "but I don't know why". Which was interesting, I didn't think she'd go for those, perhaps it's not wholly nostalgia. After a little bit she said "I feel like I would know what I was getting". Well that's unexpected, what she liked most about the old style was the summary text right there on the cover below the picture. The picture and style are attractive to me because of the nostalgia factor, but now that I think about it, she's right. I really like the summary right on the front cover. Even before I read it it lets me know there's a lot of good stuff inside, so much that it needs to spill out onto the cover. It's like a big flashing sign "Look at me, inside there is CONTENT".

Anyway for what it's worth, that's our family's take on the covers. I'd ask the baby but she can't be trusted.

[StickPerson]

I’ll go on record as saying I liked the 1e look of the 3.5 DCC line better than the new ones, but the new covers are really starting to grow on me and the reasoning for the drastic changes makes complete sense. Anyway no matter what the covers look like I’d order (and already have—can’t wait to get them) the new 4th edition DCC’s. I’m nostalgic for the old school adventures, it’s what I grew up on, and you guys pull off that style better than any other publisher. I'm having a blast torturing my players with the Legacy of the Savage Kings right now. Keep up the great work.

Also, as a side note, if you guys take requests, of the various old TSR modules I'd love to see someone pull off an adventure along the lines of Castle Amber. That was one of my favorites and it would be cool to see Goodman Games pay it some homage with a modern 4th edition DCC incarnation (with the names changed to protect the innocent of course).

[GnomeBoy]

Just been reading the thread for the first time since I started it... Had begun to regret that... until I got to Mr. Goodman's 'complete disclosure' post...

For a time, what was running through my head while reading was, "You've got the old records, you can always reminisce." Yep. John Lennon commenting on the reactions to the Beatles breaking up.

Thank you Mr. G. for your lengthy post. I've seen you do cool and amazing things with this company since I first bumped into a webpage with DCC 1 on it and DCC 2 pending... I have had no reason to doubt a continuing, interesting line...

Now, can you please explain why the heck the Beatles broke up?

[fathead]

Now, can you please explain why the heck the Beatles broke up?

Well, clearly we know the reason - their album cover art changed.

[fathead]

Would anybody care about Fugazi if there was never a Minor Threat?

Are you kidding me? Hell yes, we'd care about Fugazi. Don't get me wrong...I enjoy listening to Minor Threat, but you can't even lump them into the same category...Fugazi is just a different beast.

The same argument could be made for At the Drive In and The Mars Volta. I have to say that TMV is better. Deloused is a work of art. Truly.

[TheMilford]

Would anybody care about Fugazi if there was never a Minor Threat?

Are you kidding me? Hell yes, we'd care about Fugazi. Don't get me wrong...I enjoy listening to Minor Threat, but you can't even lump them into the same category...Fugazi is just a different beast.

The same argument could be made for At the Drive In and The Mars Volta. I have to say that TMV is better. Deloused is a work of art. Truly.

Aha! But if there were never a MT would there have ever been a Fugazi. People knew who Ian was so they checked out his new band... Same thing with Shellac vs. Big Black.

I too prefer Fugazi over their predecessor... I however HATE tMV but LOVED At the Drive In. Go figure.

It was more a comment about the DCC originals paving the way.

[fathead]

Aha! But if there were never a MT would there have ever been a Fugazi.

*shrug* Chicken or the egg question, I suppose. I'd prefer to believe that good music will eventually be heard, one way or another. Like I said, I enjoy Minor Threat, but it doesn't come close.

I however HATE tMV but LOVED At the Drive In. Go figure.

You're not alone. I haven't been able to find many people who listened to ATDI that also enjoyed TMV. I listened to Deloused shortly after it came out and decided I didn't like it....later, I gave it another listen. It now ranks as one of my favorite albums.

It was more a comment about the DCC originals paving the way.

The original DCCs paved the way for a lot of "classic feel" adventures. I admit, the nostalgia is what made me pick up a DCC in the first place...but that's not why I kept purchasing them though...that was due to the content. I picked up one of the 4E modules (Sellswords) and found it to be fantastic (one of my favorites actually). The DCC feel is still there for me. I agree with the "whitespace" comments regarding the new covers, but I enjoyed the art. If they keep artists like Erol Otus and Jeff Dee on future covers, that will still capture the nostalgia for me as well. Personally, I think there should be a whole art scene revolving around these classic D&D artists...just my opinion though.

[xredjasonx]

(Posted this in the wrong thread last night)

Very interesting discussion indeed. Other than the fact the we all know the DCC's are written extremely well, we've been drawn to them because of...nostalgia. Which was mentioned. The cover art being a major factor for some people. The thing is, not everybody began playing D&D during 1st Edition. I started playing in '94, when I was 13, with 2nd Edition. (And man I can't wait until the 4E Dark Sun is released!) And so I like the look and feel of what's inside the new DCC's.

As for cover art, well I've got Punjar: the Tarnished Jewel and The Transmuters Last Touch sitting here at my computer desk and I'm comparing the covers. The art on Punjar is actually about a half an inch larger than DCC #31, which is the same size I think of all the others. The main difference being the small text of the DCC product desription underneath the art of the 3.5 mods, something that I think should be on the back cover anyway. I like the fact that under the art of the new ones the authors' name, character level note, and the GG logo are there instead. It looks a lot more solid! My only suggestion would be to put a yellow stripe style addition to the covers stating that they are 4E modules. That's really the only thing missing, to me. I think that would generate more sales at stores. More people are playing 4E than some of the haters think. How crowded were the 4E WotC events at GenCon??? The 4E Core Rulebook Set wasn't on Amazons' top ten bestseller list for weeks for no reason. Also, the DCC logo could be a bit more defined/contrasted.

As for an uninformed bussiness suggestion, I wish GG concentrated more on internet sales by having a preorder system for each new product and a shopping cart style system. I had that opinion during 3.5. I also now understand why Joseph so adamantly supports FLGS's, but sometimes the FLGS's aren't so F. I got what I deserved for expecting the new DCC's on Amazons incorrect August 6th release date. I'm actually going to be picking up the first product wave at my local store. I lost my debit card and plan on signing up for the subscription service as soon as I get the new one. But what about people who only want select DCC's? I think it's weird that I can preorder them at Paizo but not here. I don't even care about the discount, I'd rather you guys get my cash directly.

All in all, I support the new line and am excited as hell to finally be able to run the DCC's and Master Dungeons for my gaming group.

[TheMilford]

My 2cents... as I was a production coordinator in the music biz for 5+ years and work closely with design in my current job.

To change the look for 4E enough for people to notice:

Keep the yellow banner for your details (edition, system, special release info, etc). Change the color of the banner. Simple Metallic inks look great and stand out.

Expand the cover art to be "wraparound". This will showcase the cover artists better than previously and with get you away from the chromatic border look of the 1E modules. It will also have a classic look as the original PHB and DMG had this.

Use simple, bold fonts for all text. Text that has had the Illustrator treatment to make it look like stone or metal or swords looks cheesy and lame. There are TONS of great fonts out there that can look different but still look classic RPG.

Move the module description to the back.

Make the Gooman Games logo smaller and move it to the back. BUT make sure to use a simple font header that says "Goodman Games Presents" or something to that effect.

Switch to a Matte varnish on the covers... it would be also very cool to have your printer print on the "reverse" or "wire" side of the cover stock and hit it with an aqueous coating... this will give it a high-quality leathery look but wll hold up very well. It won't flake or crease the same way gloss or standard coating do... finger prints will wipe off.

ALWAYS print maps on the inside of the cover and PLEASE make them removable folders. You could even switch to a new color for the inside maps... maybe go green or purple... something easy on the eyes.

Anyway... just my ideas pretending like I had been asked

[TheMilford]

Personally, I think there should be a whole art scene revolving around these classic D&D artists...just my opinion though.

Agree 100%

That's why I think the cover art should be wraparound.

[GnomeBoy]

Now, can you please explain why the heck the Beatles broke up?

Well, clearly we know the reason - their album cover art changed.

...The White Album, eh?

[kenwig]

Video of what the man said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro8m68uVjpM

I picked up all the new 4e adventures at GenCon and can vouch that they are just as high quality, if not better, than the previous DCC's.

[JZavoda]

I assume the yellow corner changes were made due to customer feedback asking for clear labeling to clue them in better on what the content was.

Treebore's close. The yellow stripe is a history of the first two major cases of confusion in the marketplace as it relates to DCC modules. The first case was confusion about whether they were true reprints of TSR modules, which was when the blurb was changed to "All New Module For Any Fantasy Campaign." The second case was confusion over which modules were 3.0 vs. 3.5, which was when the blurb was changed to include "3.5 compatible like all DCC modules!"

Now we face the third possible situation of confusion in the marketplace. With 4E launching, and game stores still carrying backstock on 3.5 and in some cases 3.0 products, confusion in the marketplace is a very real concern. I am highly aware of this because marketplace confusion is very expensive for me. It costs money when mistakes are made. For example, a store that accidentally liquidates the wrong inventory because they misidentified what was 3.0 vs. 3.5. I've deliberately kept 1E modules out of the supply chain because I do not want to muddy the waters even more.

Some of you shop online, but many more gamers do not. In a game store there is not a handy link that says, "Rules Edition: 4E", nor is there a "search" function. You generally have one resource, which is the store employee. Thus the challenge for me: How to provide that store employee with all information necessary to avoid yet another case of marketplace confusion?

The answer: a very dramatic change in presentation. Trust me, the yellow stripe was not enough.

The change in DCC art has nothing to do with a preference for digital art, or a "slap in the face" to anyone, or an intent to draw new customers. It's a requirement of doing business. If the DCC series is to succeed under the 4E rules, the customer has to know which modules use which rules, and the only way to arm the store employee with that knowledge is a clear and obvious change in the cover design. There can be absolutely no chance of confusion over what's 4E and what's 3E. And this has to be true in the lowest-common-denominator store -- not Games Plus in Mt. Prospect, IL, where half the staff attends Gen Con, but at places like the Borders on Ponce de Leon Ave. in Atlanta, GA where my modules sit on a lonesome shelf surrounded by employees who think RPG's are something that Afghani rebels shoot at helicopters. The cover design has to be so very different, so completely different, that anyone can tell they're different from what came before.

JZavoda, you're drawing conclusions about my intent behind the change that are completely wrong. It's about keeping the DCC line viable in retail stores. You seriously think I'm delivering a "slap in the face" to old school? Who brought back Erol Otus? Who brought back Jim Holloway? Who hunted down Jim Roslof and hired him for his first professional gaming illustrations in decades? Who persuaded Jeff Dee to start doing module covers again? Who talked Diesel into re-creating some of his classic art? All the DCC knockoffs from other publishers that have appeared in the last couple years -- you think I haven't noticed the little cottage industry the DCC line spawned? I've done more to make "old school" viable than probably anyone else in this industry. And I'm thankful my work has created a secondary market for these classic artists, in the form of Expeditious Retreat and Pied Piper and the various other companies that have popped up. You think I'd have pulled all this off if people from "the honored past" didn't trust me? The fact that Otus, Roslof, Holloway, Dee, Diesel, Arneson, and others have all agreed to work with me -- after staying away from the industry for decades -- says volumes.

It should be obvious to everyone that I have a strong affection for old school dungeon crawling and the classic vein of adventure writing. But the look of the DCC line must change for it to succeed under 4E. Yet that in no way impacts what the old-school artists can work on in other lines. I'm currently in negotiations with someone who wants to publish 1E adaptations of the existing DCC backstock. I've been talking with some of the old-school artists about adaptations of the 4E modules. But there's one huge footnote on all of this: the 4E license, the GSL. There is still a lot to be resolved. Wizards has announced they are changing the GSL once again. Will that open up the possibility of 1E adaptations where now it does not exist? So much is still unclear that it's impossible to commit to anything at the moment.

To those of you who don't like the cover design for aesthetic reasons, send me your comments. Notes like Treebore's are constructive and well received. The look of the 4E modules will be changing, not in huge ways, but at Gen Con some things were obvious once we had printed books on a shelf for the first time -- not enough color, too much white space, etc.

To those of who don't like the cover design for nostalgia reasons, sit tight and calm down. I am frankly astounded at how much innuendo has been read into a simple change in cover art. Am I the only one on the planet who knows that sometimes there are sound legal and business reasons for not talking about everything that's going on? But based on a couple pieces of cover art you're assuming I'm throwing out five years of work? Otus, Roslof, Holloway, Dee, Diesel, and Arneson all trust me, but you guys don't? Seriously, calm down. Nobody runs game companies to make money. We all do it because we love it. It's hard to love it when reading some of the things that have been posted in this thread. I am not surprised that some folks object to the new design (change always brings disagreement), but I am surprised by how feral the response has been. You're not backed into a corner, no one is taking your bone. The bone is just out of the room for a little while until some things are worked out.

So give it time... don't make any permanent judgments yet... and just take it one day at a time. Sooner or later, Wizards will announce what they're finally doing with the GSL... and I'll know what my options are... and some of my negotiations will conclude... and maybe I'll be able to announce something that you guys find appealing. In the meantime, the DCC line will continue under 4E, with no marketplace confusion, and retailers will continue to stock Goodman Games products deeply, which is ultimately what keeps the company in business to continue producing quality work of any type in the future, including the 1E con specials that the Acaeum crowd loves so much.

I've pretty much said all I had to say but when you mention the name of Orcus there's always that 5% chance of him showing up and having to wash his dishes.

I'm not sure if it was you or Kenzer who brought Otus back. The similarities between how WOTC boned Kenzer and how they have boned your company are also numerous. Having to liquadate your backstock of DCCs at wholesale prices for the privilage of supporting 4e has got to hurt, the mark-up on some of the sold-out items is over %100 already. I'm surprised there are any of them left (especially Castle Whiterock).

Unfortunately customers want what they want regardless of the good reasons companies have for buying products. Customers who've been around awhile and have heard this exact same spiel before, many times before, from companies whose names are now legend, but sadly nothing more...

I met a traveller from Wisconsin land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is TSR, king of games:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

(Ruthlessley and unartisticly altered from Shelly)

[fathead]

I'm not sure if it was you or Kenzer who brought Otus back.

You run Hackmaster, don't you? My first clue was that you used the word "gawdawful" in an earlier post...

Unfortunately customers want what they want regardless of the good reasons companies have for buying products. Customers who've been around awhile and have heard this exact same spiel before, many times before, from companies whose names are now legend, but sadly nothing more...

So...the cover art will run Goodman Games into the ground? You do love your module covers, don't you?

Seriously though...have you read one of the new DCCs? Great stuff.

[Harley Stroh]

"My name is TSR, king of games:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

I don't have anything to add to the conversation other than that I *love* that original version of that poem.

//H

[Treebore]

That's why I think the cover art should be wraparound.

This and printing maps on the inside of covers as much as possible are wins in my book.

[JZavoda]

I'm not sure if it was you or Kenzer who brought Otus back.

You run Hackmaster, don't you? My first clue was that you used the word "gawdawful" in an earlier post...

Unfortunately customers want what they want regardless of the good reasons companies have for buying products. Customers who've been around awhile and have heard this exact same spiel before, many times before, from companies whose names are now legend, but sadly nothing more...

So...the cover art will run Goodman Games into the ground? You do love your module covers, don't you?

Seriously though...have you read one of the new DCCs? Great stuff.

The new cover art is simply a symptom like an unsightly rash or a cold sore, WOTC is the disease.

I play 1e with 32 years of house rules, which is fortunately about less mechanics rather than more. Hackmaster is an unwieldy spoof game of 1e that is rules extra-heavy with mustard, ketchup, mayo and barbecue sauce on the side.

[goodmangames]

The new cover art is simply a symptom like an unsightly rash or a cold sore, WOTC is the disease.

I have to say, your insults are almost starting to get funny. It's like a "yo mama" joke contest gone awry. This is definitely the first time I've heard our cover art compared to an "unsightly rash."

JZavoda wins round one in the official Goodman Games 4E Yo Cover Art Joke Contest -- "Yo cover art so ugly it's like an unsightly rash!"

Dear readers, who among you can trump him?

[xredjasonx]

Your DCC cover art is so ugly your momma must have sat on them while the ink was still wet.

Wait, what? I love the new covers!

[GnomeBoy]

"Yo cover art is so bland it makes blue-ink inner-cover maps look like 3-D, full-motion, technicolor rainbows of awesomeness."