General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I think even the easiest, "lite-est" pen and paper RPG has a pretty big entry barrier that computer games don't have. The guy who might have climbed over that barrier in the 70s when there weren't a lot of computer games (especially at home) might just walk away from that were he transplanted into our oh so modern age, with bright shiny gizmos like World of Warcraft calling to him.
Dunno if that's good or bad. Probably bad.
Heh, well I was speaking specifically of casual tabletop gamers, which definitely exist.
I do think you have a point though, for something to appeal to casual gamers it needs to be accessible. If you look at all types of gamers overall, it seems pretty reasonable to me to think that tabletop rpg's probably have a lower percentage of casual players than many other types of games.
It's a matter of time and devotion. If you think of them as currency your game has to be cheap enough to buy into for it to be successful in attracting casual gamers. In my experience with people that I would classify as casual gamers they definitely gravitate toward rules light, either by initial design or by ignoring/dropping everything from a system until it is rules light.
It's a definite plus if a game can function on multiple levels of complexity. For instance I've seen plenty of casual players playing video games that might not be typified as casual but they still enjoy them because they know enough of the game to get by and really don't need or care about anything else beyond that. It does say something about the old pre-4e fighter wizard paradigm, having a simpler option isn't a bad thing.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
From my experience, the player demographics of D&D seem to have changed from its heyday of the early 80s. Back then, it seemed to me that there were many more players, but the majority of them were only "casual". Most of them either owned no rulebooks, or only a players handbook or a single box set. They usually didn't really try to learn the rules, they just asked the DM if what they did succeeded. They didn't really discuss D&D or their characters much outside of play. They didn't go to conventions, or subscribe to Dragon. They were often not particularly interested in other areas of fandom such as sci-fi, computers, comics, etc.
What you describe here is my players. Most of them were at one time, in their youth, hardcore players, but they have turned casual in their old age. The group I have now got together around 2000, although a couple of us have been gaming together since the 70s. I DM the game, I am the only one to own any 3e or 4e books, the only one with a DDI subscription, the only one who spends time on gaming blogs/forums/websites, the only one who knows the rules. I had to brow beat them to plan their characters beyond one level in 3e (and am quite happy that planning ahead is not nearly as required in 4th). They once mocked me for making up rules as we went along because I had some guards take the withdrawal action and they had never heard of such a thing (this was after a couple of years of playing 3e). Yeah, the casual gamer is still alive and well.
It's an age thing, in a lot of ways. Teenagers and college students have a lot of free time and are often much more heavily into their hobbies. Exceptions abound of course, from the driven college student to the 35 year old "bachelor" gamer who is as hardcore as they come. But by the time you throw kids, wives, and regular lives into the mix, everyone is a casual gamer.
(snip) Hard Core gamers would have been at Gen Con. (snip)
No, hard core gamers play the game, run the game and buy the product. If I'm going to fly to the USA it will be for a business deal of some magnitude that cannot be executed in Singapore, Australia or another country where the immigration officers are civilised.
__________________ Regards
D
The philosopher Herbert Spencer once observed: "The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools."
To be blunt about it, "casual" is an arbitrary, artificial, dismissive, and divisive term which only ever serves to fracture communities. Unfortunately it now seems to be in regular use on the subject of D&D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oni
OMG first nostalgia and now casual, how many more words are we going to vilify.
There are tons of casual gamers out there, and there's nothing wrong with them taking a casual approach, but has it gotten to the point where we can no longer call a duck a duck just because someone out there might possibly get their feathers ruffled?
You took the words right out of my mouth, Oni.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFK
All of this combined means that in the end "casual" is useless language: it means little, if anything, outside of the immediate context the user wants it to serve. In essence "casual" is in the same vein of "value" as any other "us and them" terminology used to describe a theoretical group of individuals that the speaker wants to portray in a certain light without an independent rubric for measurement.
You're overthinking, imo. We don't need an "independent rubric for measurement," just some basic definitions to work with, based on a few criteria: How much time one spends thinking about RPGs, on forums, reading books, etc; How many books owned/how much one spends regularly; How frequently one plays or wants to play; and I would add, knowledge of the hobby's history and culture.
I'll posit three categories:
CASUAL: May own rule books, but only a few and only for the purpose of playing. Rarely thinks about gaming outside of their session. Plays no more than once a week, probably less (has a hard time commiting to more than once or twice a month). Almost by definition only plays, never DMs (except maybe trying it once or twice). Doesn't go on internet forums about gaming, at least not more than once or twice to check things out (may run quickly the other way). Definitely doesn't know what "The Forge" is.
SERIOUS: Owns many game books, perhaps a few shelves worth. Buys books on a semi-regular basis, but selectively (and not necessarily to play; may be for "idea-mining," entertainment reading, etc). Thinks about RPGs frequently, even daily, but may go days or even weeks without picking up a game book or playing. Plays frequently but probably not more than once a week, and only one campaign at a time. May or may not go on internet forums frequently. May or may not know what "The Forge" is.
HARDCORE: RPGs are central to one's hobby/entertainment life. Owns many game books, probably hundreds if not thousands. Buys books on a monthly basis, spending a significant portion of disposable income. Either has a game room or wants a game room. May play in multiple campaigns at once. Basically wants to play as much as possible. Probably goes on internet forums; almost certainly has logins on ENWorld, RPG.Net, etc. Knows what the "Forge" is, has assigned GNS theory to oneself.
Or something like that. I would think that 95% of participants on this board are at least Serious gamers, with a good chunk being Hardcore. Actually, if you look at post counts an even larger portion of posts are from Hardcore gamers.
Speaking for myself, I'd categorize myself as a "Serious" gamer, with bouts of "Serious Plus." The group I currently DM is comprised of myself and five casual gamers, all 30-40-something males who haven't played since college or even before.
Another point is that there is no way to really even answer this question without being anecdotal. How many other gamers do you really come in contact with on a regular basis? Even if you are active in your local community, hang out at the FLGS, we're talking a few dozen maybe? And aren't they by definition other Serious to Hardcore gamers?
Last edited by Mercurius; 23rd August 2009 at 05:15 AM..
That's hard core in my book. What kind of game even has 80 rulebooks?
Does a train of porters follow you to the game table?
You're kidding, right? I mean, said books are for six gaming systems over 8 years (D&D3, D&D3.5, d20 Modern, Star Wars RCR, Star Wars Saga, and D&D4, plus a couple of one-off games like Call of Cthulu d20 and Wheel of Time d20) and of course I only bring what I need for my current PC in the game I'm playing in (so for D&D it's usually just a PHB and one or two supplements; with Character Builder-derived power cards these days, I don't think I'll need more than that unless I'm DMing).
You're overthinking, imo. We don't need an "independent rubric for measurement," just some basic definitions to work with, based on a few criteria: How much time one spends thinking about RPGs, on forums, reading books, etc; How many books owned/how much one spends regularly; How frequently one plays or wants to play; and I would add, knowledge of the hobby's history and culture.
*snip*
You do realize you just described an independent rubric, right?
You do realize you just described an independent rubric, right?
Ah yes, I suppose you're right. Maybe I should have said that we don't need a strictly defined rubric, just general guidelines. My definitions were meant more as descriptive than definitive...the point being, "casual" is just a common word, as is "serious" and "hardcore" (slang). We don't need strict parameters to know what they mean, although it doesn't hurt to have general guidelines, which I gave.
I disagree that there is even an identifiable cohort of "casual" Roleplayers in the first place.
I put the burden of proof upon the OP: What exactly is a "casual" player, and how is that person different demographically from any other gamer? How can you say we've lost a group if you never show who you are talking about in the first place?
ETA: Specifically, is the entire division based on how much money you spend on RPGs or how much time you spend playing them? Because I know personally how demographically slippery the "doesn't play" and "doesn't pay" groups can be once inserted into an actual play-group.
The only difference between a casual player and a hardcore player, in my eyes, is whether they play once a week or not.
__________________ "Welcome to the Honorable Temple of Tiamat. Survivors of the monster attack will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Donations gladly accepted."
99% of edition conflict boils down to "For me, there are a lot of things that [Edition] can not do in the way I want them done nearly as well as other systems can."
Last edited by Intense_Interest; 23rd August 2009 at 07:08 AM..
Ah yes, I suppose you're right. Maybe I should have said that we don't need a strictly defined rubric, just general guidelines. My definitions were meant more as descriptive than definitive...the point being, "casual" is just a common word, as is "serious" and "hardcore" (slang). We don't need strict parameters to know what they mean, although it doesn't hurt to have general guidelines, which I gave.
My contention is not the lack of a strict guideline, it's the lack of any guideline at all. The actual definition of "casual" is little more than a gut feeling the current speaker has, an ill-defined "them" that the speaker hopes their audience agrees with. From incident to incident the definition will change to be based on time investment, skill, mastery, achievement, money spent, or based on ephemeral levels of "caring" like you'd find among Metallica fans arguing over who's the realest fan in the group.
Because it's so rooted in emotion rather than any justifiable gradation (however loose the grades may be) the discussion is actually meaningless even though it feels true when you're caught up in it.
The only useful rubric I can suggest for "casual" that closely aligns with how it tends to be used would be one of exclusion.
Casual Player/Fan: by exclusion, those members of a player/fan base who do not identify themselves as 'hardcore,' or would not identify themselves as 'hardcore' when presented with the choice in a value-question.
This stems from my own personal observation that only the hardcore actually bother to align themselves and call themselves hardcore. If it's an issue to someone then they're probably hardcore. A non-hardcore fan would consider the whole thing to be a non-issue, and probably wouldn't ever consider it unless someone else brought it up.
Meh, I'm not going to get too up in arms about definitions. Not worth it.
I'm just going to chuck out my anecdotal evidence. Every single group I've played in since graduation high school some twenty ish years ago has included about half casual players. Doesn't matter the group size - if I had six players, I had 3 casuals, if I had 2 players, one was casual about it. It also doesn't make any difference IME, with online games. My online VTT games have seen pretty much the exact same divide - about 50% casual. Didn't matter if I was DM or player either. Works out the same.
So, yeah, I don't buy the OP's premise. It certainly don't jive with my experience at all.
To go another way about it, if I post on one of the VTT forums that I need four new players for a D&D game (any edition, doesn'T really matter), I'll get 2 casuals and 2 more serious gamers.
Do we need to appeal to more casual gamers? Not really. Ariosto talks about how difficult it is to learn 4e. IME, not really. A 1st level character has very few options and the combat rules are mostly intuitive. Heck, look at the Penny Arcade bunch. Included one guy who had never played an RPG before ever and he got it. How hard can it be?
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I would posit that the game requires at least one non-casual player for it to work, at least in its current incarnation. The DM has to put in time and effort that the casual gamer would not, and I think has to "care" about it in a more-than-casual way.
If a D&D version existed that could be run without that kind of a DM, you'd truly have a game for casual players. But I also think you'd have something that the non-casual player would find unpalatable.
Many hardcore D&D players I knew of back in the day, today are no longer hardcore players due to other commitments such as work, kids, mortgage, etc ... Some of them simply lost all interest in rpgs for the most part. A few of these friends sold to me (or gave to me) all their old AD&D stuff for a pittance.
In my case, I went from being a hardcore D&D player in the 1980's to a complete non-player for over a decade, and back to being a hardcore player after 3.5E was released. (I completely missed 2E AD&D and 3E D&D entirely).
I general I fall into the "I disagree with the premise" position ... at least up to a point. I think there is also a slip in "casual" players every time another supplement is released.
I know from an earlier non-scientific poll that the current tagline of "everything is core" makes a lot of non-rpgers (and probably to a lesser degree casual gamers) nervous. But more importantly, there is the standard notion amongst non-rpgers that games should have set rules and that those rules should not increase in size over time or be wildly option, as in most rpgs.
I have met a lot of casual gamers in my time; in certain ways I think the core three books of 4e are more directly aimed at casual gamers, in that they are much easier to grasp simply by streamlining the options; they feel more like a set of rules that anyone can pick up and play, albeit with a very strong combat emphasis. Whether this is a help or a hindrance is a matter of individual taste. But again, many non-rpgers become nervous when the see a whole raft of game supplements presented to them -- most people want "set rules", which means that rpgs will always appeal to a more specific subset of hobbyists than, say, Monopoly.
__________________ Jack, you have debauched my sloth.
However one defines the term, it's bound to encompass a spectrum.
I have in mind those who regard D&D as, in Gygax's words from the 1e DMG, "an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously ... who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work."
More particularly, I think of those who are decidedly in the "few hours" on occasion, rather than "endless days" in regular succession, camp.
I would like to play more often than my recent roughly monthly sessions, and my depth of interest and willingness to commit time and energy further mark me (IMO) as pretty "hard core".
The initial hurdle of complexity is likely to seem lower to people already involved in other "hobby games", and speaking from personal experience I will say that the assistance of more experienced and devoted players can help a lot. Even as one with 30+ years as a D&Der, I cannot see myself having undertaken to try 4e without such assistance. My eyes were pretty well glazed by the time I reached page 50 of the PHB: the start of the chapter on character classes!
The complications even for a fighting type may seem trivial to those who cut their teeth on 3e -- but I think that it turn was aimed mainly at folks inured to the unwieldiness of late-period 2e. It's another matter for one used to something more along the lines of the old Original and Basic sets. Some (many?) folks without even that experience might find the new game like getting tossed into the deep end of the pool, and need quite a bit more than being left to sink or swim. I know of some even with considerable experience (at least one of whom "got" the original game back in the day from a cold reading, despite its unprecedented nature and less than polished presentation) who find 4e just boggling.
Even for those of us long accustomed to rules-heavy games, the ever-increasing complexity at higher levels can be a problem with infrequent play. I would have a hard time today tossed into a session of Starfleet Battles or Advanced Squad Leader with just a fraction of all the bells and whistles. Skills and bodies of knowledge, like muscles, tend to atrophy from disuse.
However one defines the term, it's bound to encompass a spectrum.
I have in mind those who regard D&D as, in Gygax's words from the 1e DMG, "an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously ... who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work."
More particularly, I think of those who are decidedly in the "few hours" on occasion, rather than "endless days" in regular succession, camp.
I would like to play more often than my recent roughly monthly sessions, and my depth of interest and willingness to commit time and energy further mark me (IMO) as pretty "hard core".
The initial hurdle of complexity is likely to seem lower to people already involved in other "hobby games", and speaking from personal experience I will say that the assistance of more experienced and devoted players can help a lot. Even as one with 30+ years as a D&Der, I cannot see myself having undertaken to try 4e without such assistance. My eyes were pretty well glazed by the time I reached page 50 of the PHB: the start of the chapter on character classes!
The complications even for a fighting type may seem trivial to those who cut their teeth on 3e -- but I think that it turn was aimed mainly at folks inured to the unwieldiness of late-period 2e. It's another matter for one used to something more along the lines of the old Original and Basic sets. Some (many?) folks without even that experience might find the new game like getting tossed into the deep end of the pool, and need quite a bit more than being left to sink or swim. I know of some even with considerable experience (at least one of whom "got" the original game back in the day from a cold reading, despite its unprecedented nature and less than polished presentation) who find 4e just boggling.
Even for those of us long accustomed to rules-heavy games, the ever-increasing complexity at higher levels can be a problem with infrequent play. I would have a hard time today tossed into a session of Starfleet Battles or Advanced Squad Leader with just a fraction of all the bells and whistles. Skills and bodies of knowledge, like muscles, tend to atrophy from disuse.
Seems easier to get plenty of players with rules lightish fantasy along the lines of Basic and Expert D&D sets.
Every gaming group needs at least one person who is into/hardcore about the game they're playing. That person is the DM, the guy who bought the boardgame they're sitting down to play, or the guy who hooked his friends on the collectible minis/card game.
RPGs have an advantage over other types of games in that they are cooperative. If I'm a hardcore gamer playing the fighter, it's in my best interest to make sure that the n00b playing the wizard knows what he's doing. Now, there are some potential issues there, but generally D&D has been forgiving to new players because of this.
The bigger issue, IMO, is making new hardcore gamers. Bridging the gap between casual and hardcore is key, because that's how you really grow the gamer population.
For instance, take a look at Settlers of Catan (or really any of the big boardgames.) If you sit down to play Settlers with a friend who is really into it, you can play it once and learn all the mechanics. Chances are, you'll like the game enough to play it a few times. With a really well designed game like Settlers, there's a good chance that you like it enough that you go out, buy it, and teach other people to play, all based on one session.
That's how games grow. They change people who are casual about them into people who are fans of them. The simplest way to do that is to make a game someone can learn well enough to play on their own after a game or two with someone who knows how to play it.
Now, the obstacle RPGs face is that they've traditionally followed a path of becoming more and more difficult to pick up quickly. If you take a game like Champions, the first edition was 64 pages. The upcoming sixth edition weighs in at something like 600 pages. Each edition assumes you've played and mastered the one that came before.
At their root, new editions of RPGs have to aim at existing and new players. Most games aim at the current fan base, and those folks have already mastered the basics. They want more stuff! So, you give it to them. But in doing that, you're putting up barriers to making fans of beginners.
The funny thing is that it's really only non-D&D RPGs that follow that path, at least among tabletop games. D&D has gone in the opposite direction, with each edition aiming to become easier to play and learn. The page count goes up from edition to edition, though other games dwarf it in terms of relative increased page count, and each edition has sought to make the game easier to learn, easier to play, and easier to teach.
It's another place where D&D is the outlier, even though it's always been the most popular game in its category. I think D&D is as casual player friendly as ever, but I think the reason you've seen a lot of RPG systems fall by the wayside is that they've grown to the point that new players can't become hardcore about them.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
