Goodman Games

Vanguard wrote:I was responding to DimitriX, not either of you. Being into barely-clothed women isn't bad, but complaining about the PC-ness of newer editions strikes me as odd. The two major changes (removal of demons, human sacrifices etc and a more inclusive approach to the art) have been a net gain for the game, I think.

1) It's distanced the game from the controversies in the 80s where D&D was thought to be a gateway into Satanism. As good as this was for the game for getting young people into it, it's not going to attract people like it used to. It will, however, piss off plenty of parents who don't want their kids participating in imaginary satanic rituals.

2) The game was clearly written for a male audience in its heyday, both in the art direction and the point of view (ie, look at pronouns). Making women appear in similar roles that the men in the books do will attract women to the game, especially if not every girl is sporting an iron bikini in the art.

PC = / = not being attracted to women, it's about balance.

I actually agree with your points. But, I would like to see a balance. I think DCC RPG strikes that balance. Just glancing at the art in the book, right up front on the dedication page to Jim Roslof has a sexy depiction of a female elf shooting a bow. Not exploitative, but still sexy in her tube top (very 80s). But, on the inner cover of the book, we have the scantily clad female wizard. Exploitative? I don't think so. Then compare the serpent sorceress on p. 95 to the ass-kicking Warrior on the first page of the Combat section. This art is all good to me.

As far as scaring parents with imaginary Satanism, then I think those parents should look at the books on their kids' shelves. I find a lot of what's in Twilight and The Hunger Games a lot more disturbing than anything I saw in a D&D book when I was a kid.

DimitriX wrote:As far as scaring parents with imaginary Satanism...

I do hope we are over this as a culture.

I remember the to-do back in the 1980's and it really seemed to put a dark cloud over RPGs in general and D&D in specific. Wasn't a pretty sight.

I agree that there are other things out there much more troubling than anything I ever encountered in my D&D books. TV and movies reference people making deals with the devil (Supernatural, Ghost Rider, and others) or dealing with magic (Charmed) or vampires (Twilight, Vampire Diaries) or kids killing kids (Hunger Games) and folks should look at that before they worry about RPGs. Those materials are a heck of a lot more obvious and graphic about it.

Let's all please sidestep the question of Satanic influence in Rpgs. It's cobblers.

As to the PC nature of the art? In this modern age of ten year olds claiming addition to pornography...I think it is the least of society's issues. I like scantily clad barbarian women and yet I am strangely not a sexist. The fact there are usually wizards and dragons in the pictures should be a clue: it is make believe...not real as long as we have the good old fashioned loin cloth, everything will be okay, don't worry to much.

finarvyn wrote:I agree that there are other things out there much more troubling than anything I ever encountered in my D&D books. TV and movies reference people making deals with the devil (Supernatural, Ghost Rider, and others) or dealing with magic (Charmed) or vampires (Twilight, Vampire Diaries) or kids killing kids (Hunger Games) and folks should look at that before they worry about RPGs. Those materials are a heck of a lot more obvious and graphic about it.

I don't think the people making a stink have that much influence anymore, making money is way more influencial than people spewing their moral values at you.

...on a related topic. It still blows me away the popularity of those genre shows and why aren't RPG publishers going after them. The things that are SO POPULAR right now, like Twilight, Hunger Games & Super Heroes! Those were exaclty the things I was into when I first got into D&D 32+ years ago. I mean, come-on! Why didn't White Wolf pounce on the Twilight license? And Hunger Games! Obviously Super-hero RPGs are up to speed.

It's just hard to cast any of those things as a social pariah without a sensational case backing it. D&D is so closely associated with popular notions of Satanism because one private investigator pushed that narrative when a kid who played D&D went missing. The same thing happened in music at various stages because of particular cases, like the two kids who committed suicide that happened to be Judas Priest fans.

Dak, do you think there is a significant section of fans in those audiences who would also be interested in RPGs to make that kind of venture attractive to the copyright holders? Take GRRM Games of Thrones, for example. There is a licensed board game and it has its own RPG. If there was overlap, I'm thinking we would have seen it happen already.

Vanguard wrote:Dak, do you think there is a significant section of fans in those audiences who would also be interested in RPGs to make that kind of venture attractive to the copyright holders? Take GRRM Games of Thrones, for example. There is a licensed board game and it has its own RPG. If there was overlap, I'm thinking we would have seen it happen already.

I obviously don't know. I would think so. Since the major factor of genre fiction is the whole escapism aspect. What-ifs, etc. I don't care for things like Reality TV and dramas is because I'm surrounded by that s#!+ on a daily basis. So if I'm going to spend free time reading, watching, i.e. consuming, I rather explore other worlds, times and places. Obviously RPG gaming is a pretty fringe hobby, otherwise everyone would be doing it. But I don't really "care" what "everyone" is doing. I'm just thinking that fans of Fantasy and Science Fiction would be totally into the idea of Role-Playing characters in Fantasy realms and Outer & Future space. I don't understand the stigma "D&D" has when things like Hunger Games, Avatar & Harry Potter are the most popular forms of entertainment out there. But yeah, that's just me. I'm obviously "into" RPG gaming and my favorite movies are Sci-fi and my favorite books are Fantasy. I'm pretty damn happy spending time in the Sci-fi ghetto.

I do notice that popular franchises don't seem to do well as "games", when I think they totally should.

The art debate aside, and there has been some interesting stuff with this and Myth and Magic kickstarter (a cover changed then both offered due to the old-school cheesecake), DCC is as far from DnDNext as I can imagine. The little things that are similar, as listed by the OP, are far far far away from the CORE idea of both games:

DCC RPG: Joseph Goodman's RPG, if you like it too sweet, but JG is the target audience
DnDNext: RPG that almost every DnDer can play in their style*

I mean there is almost nothing that could be more different! With just three facets of DCC, the randomness of PC creation, the spell tables and the dice, you have probably lost most of the DnD play base. Add to that the lack of PC options you then lose the supporters of what appears to be the world's most popular (on sales) currently supported RPG- Pathfinder.

So yes there are things that have been mentioned by WotC that they want DnDNext to do that DCC does, however DCC does it in a way that is not inclusive to the masses...

...it does it with style!

EDIT: * I doubt they'll achieve that but I hope that they get close

reverenddak wrote:

Vanguard wrote:Dak, do you think there is a significant section of fans in those audiences who would also be interested in RPGs to make that kind of venture attractive to the copyright holders? Take GRRM Games of Thrones, for example. There is a licensed board game and it has its own RPG. If there was overlap, I'm thinking we would have seen it happen already.

I obviously don't know. I would think so. Since the major factor of genre fiction is the whole escapism aspect. What-ifs, etc. I don't care for things like Reality TV and dramas is because I'm surrounded by that s#!+ on a daily basis. So if I'm going to spend free time reading, watching, i.e. consuming, I rather explore other worlds, times and places. Obviously RPG gaming is a pretty fringe hobby, otherwise everyone would be doing it. But I don't really "care" what "everyone" is doing. I'm just thinking that fans of Fantasy and Science Fiction would be totally into the idea of Role-Playing characters in Fantasy realms and Outer & Future space. I don't understand the stigma "D&D" has when things like Hunger Games, Avatar & Harry Potter are the most popular forms of entertainment out there. But yeah, that's just me. I'm obviously "into" RPG gaming and my favorite movies are Sci-fi and my favorite books are Fantasy. I'm pretty damn happy spending time in the Sci-fi ghetto.

I do notice that popular franchises don't seem to do well as "games", when I think they totally should.

For sure. One of my player's +1 will dress up for a con, but fucking HATES D&D. It has nothing to do with it being fantasy or pretend or geeky, but she just sees the mechanical part of the experience as glorified math.

I'm sure there is some overlap, but not enough that fans of either (Twilight/HG and RPGs) are begging for a license.

Vanguard wrote: I'm sure there is some overlap, but not enough that fans of either (Twilight/HG and RPGs) are begging for a license.

That's because they don't know better. I guess my point is that there is an opportunity to market RPGs, in general, to these fans. Certain fans will buy anything that has the trademark stuck on it.

I totally can understand where your friend is coming from, my +1 won't play with me. Some of it is about that math. And I see it as the big hurdle to RPGs. If anything, I think it would be SMART if D&D, the brand, was simpler. Not like the stupid WotC "redbox". Ugh, that thing was offensive. But more like the Pathfinder Basic Box, but even SIMPLER. I don't understand the obsession with complicated rules systems, other than it being almost elitist. Personally the best set of rules are invisible to the player. I don't mind DMing, I love teaching "D&D." But when I played 3e and 4e, I had a hard time selling it to my friends. It's really stupid, but I get it. If there was only the AD&D Players Handbook and not a Holmes D&D Basic Set, I don't think I would have picked up D&D as a hobby. I swear. In fact, Dungeon board game is what helped me understand D&D tropes. DCC RPG set out to be for "experienced" players, but its been the easiest game for me to teach and sell to newbies, ironic right? You show a person who's never played D&D a 3e, 4e or even Pathfinder a character sheet... yeah, good luck. Show them the DCC RPG character sheet... not so intimidating. (I always judge a game by its character sheet.)

If I can't teach the concepts in a single session, it's too complicated.

I think the problem with 3.X is how they've tried to codify every possibility into the game. If you play the game RAW it takes a long time to get to the point where you seldom refer to the rules. More importantly, at higher levels, the math is so out of control that a single, uninteresting encounter takes hours. Example: my 11th level party killed an Ancient Black Dragon in five rounds. It took about two hours to resolve the encounter though.

By scaling back the level cap to 10 and removing a lot of the clutter of 3rd edition, DCC RPG streamlines the D20 system.

Vanguard wrote:I think the problem with 3.X is how they've tried to codify every possibility into the game. If you play the game RAW it takes a long time to get to the point where you seldom refer to the rules. More importantly, at higher levels, the math is so out of control that a single, uninteresting encounter takes hours. Example: my 11th level party killed an Ancient Black Dragon in five rounds. It took about two hours to resolve the encounter though.

By scaling back the level cap to 10 and removing a lot of the clutter of 3rd edition, DCC RPG streamlines the D20 system.

Yes.

3e was an interesting experiment. Thankfully, some designers have learned not only from the mistakes of 3e, but also from the accomplishments of that system.


RC