Goodman to publish old DCC line with 1E rules and under....

Egg of Coot · Post by **Egg of Coot** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:25 am

Interesting news. I've already got a (nearly) complete run of DCC modules up to the end of 3.5e, but I'll definitely check these releases out. Especially if some of the rarer DCCs are part of the release schedule.

The Egg
_________________

PrimEvil Studios on Facebook. Be a fan.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:18 am

CharlieRock wrote:
So there are two (or more) 1E AD&D systems?

I just want to know so I wont go confusing somebody that asks me.

No, there's not even one. When Goodman did the first '1e' compatible module, they did what anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have done, they just put 1e style stat blocks in it. Creating a whole system to do so was and is still unnecessary and redundant.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:50 am

Charlie rock, to put it simplest Goodman did 1E compatible products following the copyright laws, much like Moriarty said. A lot of people feel uncomfortable doing that, because one IP mistake can kill your company, ask James Ward. Even though I think it took more than one to kill his company. Plus I believe there was another factor or two in play.

So what OSRIC does is provide an "open" set of rules that can be directly referenced by people, making them feel safer about not violating "IP".
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:35 am

Yeah. I think OSRIC lays the groundwork for those who want to produce work for 1st Edition without the "Imperial entanglements" that may result in working on something without the help OSRIC. If you're careful (and smart), it can be done without the assistance of OSRIC. Of course, a side-effect of OSRIC's existance (whether it was intended or not) was that people use the ORRIC system as table rules instead of just a reference in which to make 1st Ed. compatible work.

*shrug*

Not that it bothers me or anything. I see OSRIC kind of like I see Pathfinder - it's close enough to the original version that if I'm going to play something, I may as well just play the original rules. But of course, they are both radically different in their purposes.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:25 pm

I may be tempted to pick up these 1E's. Would have prefered more C&C DCC's, but that probably won't happen. Looks like they're going with late 70's type covers for the new 1E DCC's. That's fine, but I still like my covers a little more early 80's Otus-fied! I'm wondering, if there'll be pdf versions for sale as well. That might be a safe move for the folks putting out the 1E's. And, did I hear correctly, that E-versions of the DCC's will be available about a dozen at a time? The release schedule appeals to me more, but 1E's would be easier to convert. Damn. I just want the DCC's C&C-ified. That said, Taco John?, you guys GO!

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:28 pm

I'm not knocking the idea because I think it is great but a couple thoughts did come to me. Why risk the money to produce something for a system that is not in print and hard to come by? The typical appeal to new gamers isn't going to be there and your sales base is going to be small and will likely remain small. At least C&C is in print and pretty easy to come by unlike scouring for 1e books. I am a bit confused on this.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:37 pm

Julian, I agree with your point about in print, and out of print systems. Maybe it has to do with some of the fervor over Goodman's GenCon specials(those occasional 1st edition versions they produced)? Don't know. Maybe C&C is considered to be more of a niche market, despite being "IN" print, not out-of-print.

sieg · Post by **sieg** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:20 pm

IMO, 1E versions are almost practically C&C versions anyway. After all, what's to do; flip ACs? That's it!

Though a possible cross-sell for BB might be to make the modules 1E but give C&C conversions? Maybe a cheat sheet in the back for those who need the encounters pre-converted? That way, you could use the C&C logo as well and get both markets buying your product.

Just a thought...

BTW, am I the only one getting a 403 error when trying to go to the Black Blade site?

Mike
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:27 pm

You have to go to Goodman's site to get there.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:42 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
You have to go to Goodman's site to get there.

No you don't. You just need to do a websearch for the name of the company.

This one sure has me baffled. The C&C module is already out from Goodman, cheaper, and more 'modern' production quality. If you're trying to bring classic modules into the modern era, you certainly don't do so with the look of the old module layouts. Especially not while aiming at out of print game systems.
The market isn't as big as these folks think, and that's a fact.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:57 pm

I really don't care, for the most part. Very few of them were interesting, so the "format" is irrelevant to me.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:29 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
No you don't. You just need to do a websearch for the name of the company.

Well you can if you want to do it the easy way.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:34 pm

I liked the Rat King ones...but would rather see them in C&C than 1e.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:53 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
If you're trying to bring classic modules into the modern era, you certainly don't do so with the look of the old module layouts.

Hackmaster has been using that layout and style for awhile now. It is not as obscure as all that now.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:58 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
This one sure has me baffled. The C&C module is already out from Goodman, cheaper, and more 'modern' production quality. If you're trying to bring classic modules into the modern era, you certainly don't do so with the look of the old module layouts. Especially not while aiming at out of print game systems.
The market isn't as big as these folks think, and that's a fact.

You know those old-schoolers don't want their modules looking too fancy.
But, if you're saying what I think you're saying, I agree.

I just think it'd make much more sense to put them out for an "old school-ish" system that's actually in production.

*shrug*
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:03 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
I just think it'd make much more sense to put them out for an "old school-ish" system that's actually in production.

*shrug*

Exactly. And if you're aiming for new markets, which means young folks who are attracted by eye candy, the pre 1979 era look isn't going to work.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:06 am

Not necessarily. It might, simply because it is different. If everything is some shiny BS color with huge pieces of art jumping off the screen, but yours is a little black and white thing, it might just be the thing someone looks at, because it is the one that is most unlike the others. Conformity only goes so far, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:09 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
Exactly. And if you're aiming for new markets, which means young folks who are attracted by eye candy, the pre 1979 era look isn't going to work.

True, true.

serleran wrote:
Not necessarily. It might, simply because it is different. If everything is some shiny BS color with huge pieces of art jumping off the screen, but yours is a little black and white thing, it might just be the thing someone looks at, because it is the one that is most unlike the others. Conformity only goes so far, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.

No, I actually agree with you but I think it's a particular mindset. You or I might look at the black and white, plain-ish cover because we know what that might represent. But for the masses, I feel it's different. I think the move vivid the cover, the more likely you are of grabbing their attention. I'm not saying it's right, but it seems to be the way it is.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:38 am

Want to know something funny? Go to any game shop and ask if they know about OSRIC or Goodman Games doing a 1e module and you get blank stares. Ask about C&C and some have heard of it. I think it speaks for itself.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:54 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
Why risk the money to produce something for a system that is not in print and hard to come by? The typical appeal to new gamers isn't going to be there and your sales base is going to be small and will likely remain small. At least C&C is in print and pretty easy to come by unlike scouring for 1e books. I am a bit confused on this.

They are going for new gamer appeal. AD&D stuff isn't hard to come by. Most game shops I've visited (which has admittedly been rarer these past several years) have a fair selection of 1st edition stuff in them with no representation of C&C on the shelves.

Heck, I found a couple AD&D used books at a Hastings.

Sir Ironside · Post by **Sir Ironside** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:05 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
You know those old-schoolers don't want their modules looking too fancy.

Well this old-schooler agrees. But, this old-schooler has never bought a DCC. This old-schooler might if it is a C&C product but even that is debatable. Though I may look at these for my 1e books.... may, not confirmed.

Philotomy Jurament · Post by **Philotomy Jurament** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:05 am

While I have my own system preferences, I'm happy to purchase and use material published for OD&D, B/X, 1e, C&C, etc. What's critical to me isn't which flavor of system is used (my game is house-ruled enough that nothing is 100% compatible without tweaking, anyway), but rather the quality of the adventure and how well it fits into my game. It's true that material written for certain systems is less likely to match my tastes (e.g. I'm not a big fan of most 2e stuff), but that's adventure design/style issues, rather than system issues. With any pre-WotC edition of D&D and similar systems like C&C, stat conversion just isn't that big a deal.

If I were going to publish an adventure, the pool of "traditional D&D" gamers would be my target, and 1e (or OSRIC, which is available in print via Lulu) would definitely be on my short-list, as far as system goes. It's the lingua franca of traditional D&D: the de facto standard. C&C gamers know you can use a 1e module effortlessly (heck, being able to use all my old stuff was one of the things that powered my attraction to C&C in the first place). Guys playing AD&D, B/X, BECM, OD&D, Hackmaster, BFRPG, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, etc. all know they can use a 1e module effortlessly. Gamers playing modern editions (i.e. WotC editions) wouldn't be my main target, but I don't see a big downside to using the "1e" approach there, either. If a modern gamer is interested in dipping a toe into "old D&D," he's likely to either know what 1e is, or quickly run into it when he starts poking around.

With that said, though, I do wish the first module of the line wasn't Secret of Smugglers Cove -- I already own the C&C version.
_________________
http://www.philotomy.com
Lost City Campaign Log

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:08 am

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
With that said, though, I do wish the first module of the line wasn't Secret of Smugglers Cove -- I already own the C&C version.

Yeah.

Philotomy Jurament · Post by **Philotomy Jurament** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:17 am

sieg wrote:
IMO, 1E versions are almost practically C&C versions anyway. After all, what's to do; flip ACs? That's it!

Hey, Mike, I sat directly across from you during Tim Kask's Saturday night game at the North TX RPG Con, and didn't realize it until someone told me who you were, later.
_________________
http://www.philotomy.com
Lost City Campaign Log

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:33 am

*snorts* Wasn't debating the utility of the use of the module or what system it was for. I was debating the unsound reasoning of using pre 1979 cover formats to appeal to a modern, new, demographic, and the even larger futility of trying to make any money selling a product for an out of print system.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

tacojohn4547 · Post by **tacojohn4547** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:52 am

Heh heh - Thanks for the interest guys.
Lots to respond to here. Of course, some of the questions speak to the business side of Black Blade, so I won't be addressing those in this or any other public forum.

Lets start with the "why AD&D?" question. (Peter - this all may sound familiar to you. We've had this discussion before, on these very boards if I remember correctly, and guess what - I'm still playing AD&D with my regular group.)
There are two main reasons for doing the DCC conversions to First Edition AD&D. First, as suggested above in my tonge-in-cheek ribbing of Peter, First Edition AD&D is the game system of choice for my regular gaming group. I am the primary DM for that group and First Edition AD&D is the rule system I know the best and the one I'm most comfortable running on a regular basis.

Secondly, and perhaps just as importantly, AD&D is by my estimation the best common denominator rule system for pre-3.x/d20 Dungeons and Dragons. As PJ noted, there are a number of the older systems for which products can be used pretty much interchangably with little or no translation required. So if AD&D can be considered a universal rule set (or "the" universal rule set) for all of the older, OOP games, it seems to be a reasonable choice for these conversion adventures.

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:55 am

There's been a good deal of discussion about how much of a player base there is for 1E. I couldn't say to be honest, but I would think it to be a lesser percentage of the overall roleplaying world. Then again, are there any indicators as to how large C&C's slice of the pie is in the overall gaming spectrum? If we're talking fantasy, I would think 4E, and maybe 3.5 would be the biggies. Could see Pathfinder coming in at 2 or 3 in the future. On a list of 5 or 10 fantasy rpg's, who would be next? C&C, Gurps Fantasy, Fantasy Hero, True 20 fantasy, etc? And, where(IYO) would D&D 1E and 2E rank on this list of "in print" games? It's all opinions, short of sales figures I suppose.

As for these DCC 1E reprints, at least the conversion(as many of you say) will be easier for C&C. On the subject of the covers, I'd harken back to an older style(late 70's-early 80's). Personally, I don't see many teens and younger 20-somethings(the few that actually play fantasy rpg's) gravitating to much else other than 3.5, 4E, or perhaps Pathfinder, or True 20. IMO, appeal to the mid-upper 30's-60+ base that will seek these out. Although, converting them all to 4E(if the GSL would allow for it), would appeal to that broad base. Either way, I'll have to decide if I'm going to buy these 1E's(which will probably be released very slowly), or if I'm going for the re-released 3.5 E-books(of which a dozen are/or will be at rpgnow initially).

tacojohn4547 · Post by **tacojohn4547** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:11 am

Treebore wrote:
Yes, but Goodman Games used their own idea of doing 1E compatible products, not OSRIC, and I would guess John and Joseph Goodman will be continuing to do 1E conversions using their method, not OSRIC.

TacoJ. feel free to correct me or confirm. Plus we need to make sure we hook up at Gen Con this year. Or Troll Con, if your going.

Treebore - we do indeed need to hook up at Gen Con this year. I posted the same thing at Necromancer Games tonight.

These First Edition AD&D conversions are being released under the OGL, but with First Edition AD&D monster stats and event resolution mechanics written into the text instead of d20 stats and mechanics.

K2h2m3 · Post by **K2h2m3** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:15 am

I don't know....I mean I'd buy one possibly. Depends if they got rid of some of the "d20isms" to borrow a phrase from someone else. I didn't like the C&C versions for that very reason nor the previous 1ed ones. The cover does appeal to me but I'm not totally sure why.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:18 am

tacojohn4547 wrote:
Lets start with the "why AD&D?" question. (Peter - this all may sound familiar to you. We've had this discussion before, on these very boards if I remember correctly, and guess what - I'm still playing AD&D with my regular group.)

We have. And, as yet, your reasons have naught to do with any sense of the current market, just personal preference. Which is just fine and dandy if its just a hobby and not a serious attempt at making any real profit. Not everyone is in it for the money after all.
As someone mentioned earlier, why would anyone want to pay near twice as much for something they've already got?
That's why it makes no objective sense.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley