Courting Appeal
January 24th, 2011
Hello everyone, and welcome to another Dark Designs. If you’ve been a gamer for a long time, you’ve probably, at one point or another, listened to complaints (or perhaps even made them yourself) that such and such company is an evil, heartless corporation because the products that it makes aren’t being marketed to its loyal and core fanbase (which, at least, is what the complainers perceive themselves to be) but is instead shifting their business model (and product) to represent some other, perhaps more fiscally lucrative, demographic. I obviously cannot speak for most companies (considering my general lack of insider knowledge on such things), but I believe that these kinds of statements are grossly unfair, and it is this (or, rather, the subject of playing to a target audience) that I’d like to discuss today.
I don’t believe that any company has ever “not cared” about the core of its fanbase, even if they (for whatever reason) did decide to move in a new direction. While 4th edition, for example, may have alienated a large number of D&D’s fans (myself largely included, at the time), I don’t think that any of the Wizards employees were sitting in smoke-filled rooms, tenting their fingers and laughing maniacally at their evil plot to topple the great franchise. It is possible that, in an effort to make the game more accessible, sleek, and clean, and appeal to a new and wider audience, that they may have overlooked some parts of their existing fanbase. But it was certainly not on purpose.
With our new line of A Necromancer’s Grimoire books (and other, similar lines), we have been very conscious to keep our target audience in mind with each book, and, moreover, to make sure that we could keep the book accessible to as many potential readers as we could. Luckily, as (relatively obscure) third-party publishers, we didn’t have to worry about attracting new people into the market of gaming. We just had to make sure that all of our products would appeal to as wide a variety of existing gamers as possible. I found the whole exercise fairly interesting, and thought that you might as well. So, here are some of the things that we consider when making a Necromancer’s Grimoire which might not be so readily apparent if you aren’t able to scry on our staff meetings. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have an impact, of course, just that it’s the subtle kind, which you may not notice without having it pointed out to you.
#1: Make sure that the book has something for players, as well as DMs:
Generally speaking, there are roughly between 1/4 and 1/5 as many DMs as there are players. True, in some groups everyone takes turns DMing, and sometimes a single DM may run games for multiple groups, or for large groups, meaning that in a given group the DM-to-Player ratio can be anywhere from 1:1 to 1:12 or higher. It’s also true that some players will pick up monster manuals or adventure modules just for the entertaining reading they make. But generally speaking, something that’s only of real benefit to a DM has a lot fewer people who are likely to use it. As such, we generally try to steer clear of any product which would only appeal to a DM.
This clearly isn’t a hard-and-fast rule, and we probably will do a monster menagerie of some kind in the future (though there are other difficulties with such a book besides the DM:Player ratio), but it is something we keep in mind. Similarly, a book which described an NPC organization, or a town, or even a whole adventure module, would most likely not be undertaken unless we had a way of ensuring that there would be something in that book for players, too. Sometimes this is easy to do, and sometimes it isn’t, but, all in all, the number of “slots” which can be allocated to primarily-DM products is not very high.
#2: Make sure that all the class archetypes have something to play with.
When I say “class archetype,” I’m referring to things like “melee fighter,” “spellcaster,” “healer,” and the like. They’re exemplified by the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard, but typically speaking there are several classes which will fall (entirely or in part) under any given archetype. If we put out a book that’s all druids, all the time, that’s really great if you happen to really like druids (or are currently playing a druid, at the very least). Otherwise, there isn’t that much in it for you. Typically speaking, when we make a book, we know that one archetype (or, sometimes, even a specific class) is going to get the majority of the “love” that the book has to offer. The Book of Purifying Flames, for example, was primarily for spellcasters (though it did offer things for both arcane and divine casters). Beyond that, though, we usually try to find another archetype that we can let in on the fun. Returning to the above example, we included a prestige class designed for melee fighters (paladins got the best of it, but a fighter would do just fine).
Of course, some books have a more narrow focus than others, and, beyond that, it’s rare for any given book (at least, when the books are so small) to pander to all the various classes and class archetypes. So, in order to make sure that there’s something for everyone, we do our best to stagger our releases: we won’t follow a wizard-heavy book with a book about sorcerer bloodlines. Instead, we’ll take a breather from the arcane, and move off to something more up the alley of rogues or fighters, for example. Along a similar vein, we try to balance any alignment- or racially-aligned books (so that evil characters get a book for every book good characters get, and elves don’t wind up with three books while gnomes and halflings have none).
As a quick aside about evil books: in general, it’s my desire to lean a little heavily towards evil PCs. Not because I think that evil campaigns are necessarily all that great, but simply because NNW’s relative obscurity makes it a little…safer to do so. Generally speaking, big companies like Paizo and Wizards of the Coast don’t really want to put out books with, say, a lot of cannibalism, because it isn’t great for their public image. It’s not like they’re worried about real backlash, like in the old days when D&D was supposedly Satanism, and all that (I wonder if that would make an interesting Dark Designs article?), but just because it’s hard to market The Big Book of Eating Corpses. Your PR people just don’t want to do it. And while there are a lot of players who may not like the idea of a game that includes cannibalism, I believe that there are also a fair number who do (and not in a creepy way, mind you…you don’t have to be in favor of something in reality to want to explore it in your game. But, of course, you probably know that already). Virtuous heroes of light are dime-a-dozen from the quote-unquote mainstream publishers, but people interested in Book of Vile Darkness-level evil (with the, ahem, exception of the Book of Vile Darkness) need to turn elsewhere. Like to us. If we’re concerned that a part of our book may be too…dark…for a lot of players, we’ll usually put in a sidebar or two of warning and gentle advice on avoiding ill will and problems. If it’s most of the book, we’ll be sure to put it in the description or the cover, so no one feels cheated.
Whew! So much for “quick!” At least it was an aside, though. In fact, it looks like it kind of ate up the rest of the article. So, maybe it was less an aside than a detour. Whatever the case, that’s it for this week.