D&D 5E Do you play with "casual" gamers, and how should D&D Next accomodate their needs?

[Keldryn]

If D&D Next is to be successful, it needs to appeal to both dedicated gamers as well as casual gamers.

The primary criteria by which I am defining "casual" gamers is whether or not they are invested enough in the game to spend time and effort outside of the gaming session engaged in gaming-related activities: reading the books, learning the rules, developing characters, etc. Casual gamers don't spend much time outside of the game session even thinking about the game, and most likely don't own any books.

Dedicated gamers are vital to the game's success, as they are the ones who actually buy the books and provide revenue to WotC. They also play a key role in recruiting new players to the game. But people don't always learn to play D&D by joining an existing group; I learned it on my own when I bought the Mentzer Basic Set, then got some friends to play it with me.

Casual gamers may become dedicated gamers (and thus customers) in time. Even if they don't, they are often necessary in order to have enough people to play the game. Casual gamers often make the difference between playing a (semi-) regular game and not playing at all, especially for working adults.

In my experience, casual gamers are typically spouses/partners of a dedicated gamer, lapsed gamers who played when they were in high school, or people who play video games but have never played a pencil & paper game. Most casual gamers that I play with have little or no interest in tactical combat or optimizing characters.

My own gaming group tends to have a roughly 50/50 split between dedicated and casual gamers. If the balance skews in one particular direction, it's usually towards casual gamers. I like gaming with my friends, and while I've made many good friends through gaming activities, I've met far more gamers who I frankly don't want to associate with at any time. While casual gamers may not be buying D&D books, I won't be spending nearly as much money on D&D if I can't get casual gamers to join my game.

I frequently argue for D&D Next to be approachable to the casual gamer first and foremost. The core rules should be a complete game with character options focused on common fantasy archetypes, without an overwhelming number of decisions to make. The expansion modules can add the options and details that many dedicated players enjoy.

Some will suggest a comprehensive core rulebook that features flexible character creation and many options, with default "starting packages" for new or casual players. This might meet the needs of new players who will become dedicated players, but it fails to meet the needs of casual players who just aren't interested in learning all of the details of the game. Casual players don't want to put much effort into playing a game; they will often have a great time while playing and make valuable contributions to the game, but anything that feels like work will be a barrier to their enjoyment of the game.

The simple starter set approach fails the needs of casual gamers as well, because at some point players are expected to graduate to the full game; again, new players are expected to become dedicated players if they keep playing.

The 4e Essentials line had the right approach in many ways, but unfortunately worked its way backwards to get there. Essentials had the difficult task of streamlining a complex game while remaining totally compatible with it. It was still too fiddly for my casual players to enjoy (and combat still took too long).

This is just my take on the subject; I've read posts from other gamers who more or less state that they expect new players to become invested enough in the game to put some effort into it or else they'll get dropped from the game. The Wizards of the Coast editions of D&D have not worked particularly well for me when I've had more casual players in my group; they need to make a lot decisions without understanding the implications and the speed of play tends to be very slow, causing them to lose interest in the game.

What do the rest of you think? Do you typically play with casual gamers? Are your experiences different than mine? Do you have a different opinion as to what the needs of casual gamers are? Do you not give a flying flumph what casual gamers like?

And yes, I realize that this post is not accessible to casual gamers.

EDIT: There are of course dedicated gamers who prefer a lighter, simpler rules system. Like me. I've played D&D since 1987, and while there was a time that 3e's level of complexity was awesome to me, it's just too much. 4e wasn't just too cumbersome for my players, it was for me too.

 

[Janaxstrus]

So...you want to put "casual gamers" first...when admitting they don't buy the books?

Interesting theory. Not one I believe would work, or they should attempt, but ok. It's kind of necessary to sell books to have a game. Making a simple game aimed at people not buying the books seems rather short sighted.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have my established, non-casual players, plus one of their wives. She's not going to buy any of the books he already has, and she pretty much lets him handle making characters; not sure if she counts as "casual". By the above definition, I guess so.

That said, casual players are important. From a business perspective, this is because they may become more serious over time, but also because they recruit other players aand facilitate games that people buy things for.

 

[Ellington]

I think that new players should be treated as people that are actually trying to get into the game. It should be expected that they're willing to go the extra mile to learn some rules if they're playing D&D in the first place.

Stay clear of any unnecessary rules, but don't trim down on useful rules just to cater to new or casual players. Make the rules clear and logical and they'll sink right in!

 

[Keldryn]

So...you want to put "casual gamers" first...when admitting they don't buy the books?

Interesting theory. Not one I believe would work, or they should attempt, but ok. It's kind of necessary to sell books to have a game. Making a simple game aimed at people not buying the books seems rather short sighted.

Let me expand on that.

The 4e approach was to release the core rules, targeted at existing gamers, the first year. In 2010, they shifted to trying to target new gamers with Essentials. So Essentials had to take the approach of streamlining a complex game in order to keep it backwards compatible.

The 5e approach is to start with a simple, streamlined core and then expand the game's scope through modular expansions. There are multiple ways that this can be organized. For example, the simple core rules could be a single product with the modular options being something purchased separately. There could be a single Player's Handbook with the core rules at the start of the book and advanced modules in the appendices. The Player's Handbook could also have some of the advanced modules intermixed with the core rules, with heading clearly identifying which rules are core and which ones are modular (many dedicated gamers would probably prefer this, but it would be off-putting to many new or casual gamers).

I'm not saying that WotC should design a simple game aimed at people who don't buy the books.

I am saying that the game should start with a complete game that is playable by new and casual players, and build up from there. Even better if a new or less-dedicated player can buy a product that contains a complete game without a great deal of added complexity.

I think there is a better chance of turning a new or casual player into a dedicated player with a product line similar to Basic/Expert D&D than Advanced D&D, for example. It's more approachable and less intimidating, and some players are going to take longer to warm up to the complexity of a game like D&D than others. A book like the 3e or 4e PHB can easily snuff out a potential player's interest before they even give it a chance.

 

[El Mahdi]

I have casual gamers all the time. My wife is definitely a casual gamer. All D&D needs to do to appeal to her is be simple, quick, and intuitive...and I think it's already a good distance to that goal.

 

[BobTheNob]

Myself and one other guy are dedicated. The other 5 are casual regulars. What I mean by that is, they turn up to every session, they actively participate, but they wont put in time outside of the game.

For our position, simplicity is the need. Simple rewarding characters. I have heard so many on forums complain about the bog simple nature of the fighter, but from my groups perspective. BINGO!!!

We played 4e and Im now looking forward to a game that can be enjoyed at a far simpler level. 4e was just too much for our level of play**.

** Disclaimer : I personally thought 4e was genius. A seriously well designed game. In retrospect, It just wasnt appropriate for my group.

 

[the Jester]

I don't usually play with casual gamers because my game is f'ing awesome enough that they all become gaming fanatics.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm smelling a "casual" vs "hardcore" discussion here.

Casual gamers are not the guys who say "meh, whatever" when asked about the hobby.

Casual gamers are the folks who prioritize things BEFORE gaming. Like family, a job, a home, and so on and so forth.

I LOVE playing D&D, I love running games, building monsters, making characters, but when I need to work, help my family, clean my house, and make dinner, that comes first.

And I'm pretty sure that D&D has appealed to the no-lifers as much as it appeals to the "casual" folks who have other priorities than gaming.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'd probably be considered a weird casual gamer, but I still consider myself closer to being a casual D&D player than a truly dedicated one. Honestly, I play videogames and freeform roleplay/improv stuff much more than I play D&D, so I'd consider D&D to be a tertiary hobby for me at best. I also got into the hobby by teaching myself the rules without any access to a pre-existing group, which gives me a different perspective than some here.

Anyways, the simple answer I'd give for what D&D's designers could do to appeal to casual gamers is "the exact opposite of what they are doing now". More or less, a modular game makes it harder for new players to really understand the rules, since it makes the system much more self-contradictory and inconsistent, and consistency is incredibly important for learnability (much more so than simplicity, I think). Modularity is something that is aimed at dedicated players who know what they want in detail, rather than someone trying to learn the game.

Just as much, I think things like a simplicity which is built upon DM-empowerment and appealing to tradition and nostalgia rather than modern popular trends and clear writing are bad for getting casual players into the game. The game needs to be simple and clear for people to be able to easily learn it, but that simplicity must be a focus on consistent mechanics and clear, unambiguous writing, rather than Gygaxian verbage, rules with big gaps designed to appeal to DM fiat (and thus experienced DMs), or focusing on flavor over clarity. Meanwhile, player empowerment and a focus on modern fantasy would help newer players understand and identify with the game much more easily, and more easily shift into the comfort zone of roleplaying.

Basically, people need to understand that the casual player has the polar opposite of interests and needs from the traditionalist players who look for D&D to play more like older editions. An edition aimed at unifying the editions is almost by intent going to be a bad edition for casual or new players.

Of course, nice things like a proper index and glossary help a lot, too.

As a general rule, though, I don't think new or casual players need simple mechanics. Most new players these days are likely to have played something like Final Fantasy games, World of Warcraft, Mass Effect, Magic the Gathering, or any number of countless other games. In other words, the general pool of potential D&D players is getting rather comfortable with complex game mechanics. I mean, WoW has millions and millions of players (many of whom are very casual players), but it has much deeper and more complex mechanics than older D&D editions do. Honestly, D&D mechanics need to present themselves as either very roleplay friendly (which D&D simply never has been compared to things like World of Darkness games or FATE), or have mechanics deep and satisfying enough to appeal to gamers who are used to good videogames or boardgames. Simplicity for simplicity's sake isn't necessarily going to achieve either.