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

[BobTheNob]

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.

Hallelujah brother!

I have family, a house to run, a mortgage to pay off and a career to adhere to. I love my D&D, but it comes a distinct last against those considerations. My players are all also the same. That's just life.

 

[Keldryn]

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.

I agree that modularity is aimed at dedicated players, but I don't think that it makes it harder for new players to learn the game -- depending on how the modular options are constructed. Self-contained modules which extend the core system, without changing the underlying rules and structure, are best. BECMI had a number of what are essentially modular systems that appeared as the campaign progressed, which is one way to handle such options without making the game harder to learn.

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.

I agree with all of this. Gygaxian prose was great for developing my vocabulary, but it's a terrible way to write any sort of reference or instruction manual. Consistent and flexible mechanics eliminate much of the need for pure DM fiat, but one of the strengths of tabletop gaming is that you have a real person who can make judgement calls, instead of a computer following programmed instructions. Leave out the D&D equivalent to the "do not use while sleeping" statements on hair dryer instructions though. Assume DMs have some degree of common sense.

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.

That's assuming that traditionalist players are looking for it to play like older editions purely out of nostalgia and a dislike of change.

I like older editions because I feel less stifled by rules and explicitly described options and because combats run much faster. I don't really like the higher lethality that much, and many of the mechanics are clunky and unintuitive. Speed of play generally trumps all of the negatives though.

A D&D with the fluidity and speed of play of older editions with the consistent mechanics of new editions could appeal to traditionalists who aren't hung up on specific mechanics and terminology, as well as casual gamers.

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.

That's more or less the approach they took with 4e, isn't it? Computers can handle complex mechanics much faster than humans, so WoW mechanics aren't a good comparison. You also don't want to limit D&D's appeal to players of those electronic games. MMORPGs, by their very nature, are decidedly non-casual. It's extremely hard to accomplishing of anything playing casually, as the games are designed around players investing a lot of time. I've read WoW players talking about those "casual" players on message boards. Thus particular definition of casual was anyone who spent 15 hours a week or less playing the game. That's a part-time job, not casual engagement in a hobby.

We have an unprecedented number of entertainment options available today. If D&D requires a larger investment of time, effort, and money than the alternatives, it's market will keep shrinking.

A D&D with simple but flexible rules can be played anywhere, at any time, and the possibilities are only limited by the imaginations of its players. That's its appeal. When you keep adding more stuff to the core of the game, it undermines this simple appeal.

 

[Lanefan]

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!!!

Ding.

Make the core design simple, simple, simple. We can always add our own gype onto it if we want to make it more complex.

Lanefan

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

That is not what I consider the definition of a casual gamer at all. The people I game with do not consider themselves casual gamers. Our games are important to us and we try and keep to a schedule. But we all have real life things that are important and sometimes get in the way of gaming. And gaming like any hobby does not take precedence over our families, jobs and other responsibilities.


A casual gamer to me is someone who will play the game but it is way down on their list of hobbies. They really don't bother to learn even the most basic rules and sometimes can't be bothered to bring their character sheet to the game.

 

[chaochou]

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.

I think there's a world of difference between being a casual gamer and being a gamer who isn't interested in system mastery.

 

[Incenjucar]

Ding.

Make the core design simple, simple, simple. We can always add our own gype onto it if we want to make it more complex.

Lanefan

Eh. I think "easy" is a better word for what we need, with simple options for every major concept as part of the core. Not all casual players want simple games, even if they're likely to want games that are easy to get a hang of.

 

[Imaro]

I think there's a world of difference between being a casual gamer and being a gamer who isn't interested in system mastery.

There's also a world of difference between system mastery and having a firm understanding of the rules of the game. IME, most casual gamers don't expend the effort necessary to gain a grasp of game rules they aren't using constantly. IMO, that's not system mastery though.

As an example, in my group the more hardcore gamers tend to know exactly what a bull rush is when they want to use it and how it's accomplished... on the other hand the casual gamers in my group don't know what a bull rush is, will probably only ever use the actual term when a more hardcore gamer suggests and explains what it is and... probably will only ever encounter it without outside guidance through stating something like they are trying to "push" a creature (at which point they turn to the DM and go... "What should I roll").

 

[TerraDave]

Casual gamer is being used as a put-down in the thread.

Which doesn't make any sense.

The players who are that casual: forget them. They are not customers, they may not want to be sitting in your game, but are for some bad reason. They are a headache waiting to happen. Its better you all move on.

What you really want is:

People who have fun with game, but don't obsess about it outside the game. They don't know all the rules, or kill themselves on char-build. They don't always take the "best" action. But they enjoy the game.

(as can be guessed...there are variations in that people may enjoy some aspect of the game more and neglect the other bits, but the overarching idea holds).

These gamers, you want to embrace. They are key. They often have a better (in and out of) game attitude then more zelous gamers, and give others a little more time in the limelight. And they often become dedicated enough to make a contribution in play and even buy a few books or minis.

5E is heading in the right direction for these potential players.

 

[Sunseeker]

A casual gamer to me is someone who will play the game but it is way down on their list of hobbies. They really don't bother to learn even the most basic rules and sometimes can't be bothered to bring their character sheet to the game.

After having this discussion on nearly every video game forum I go to, what you are defining are "bads". They are the folks who just don't want to learn how to play, but play anyway.

Casual gamers know how to play, they simply have other priorities.

 

[Nikosandros]

Casual gamers know how to play, they simply have other priorities.

Having other priorities isn't indicative of being a casual gamer... just a sane person!

I'm not a casual gamer at all, I consider myself fairly hardcore, but gaming is still a hobby and it comes much after family, work and other serious matters.