I think there's a world of difference between being a casual gamer and being a gamer who isn't interested in system mastery.
Absolutely. However, I'm a gamer who is not interested in system mastery, but I spend a lot of time outside gaming sessions reading about, thinking about, and posting about gaming. I certainly wouldn't call myself a casual gamer, although I'm sure that some dedicated gamers would probably apply that label to me.
Case in point: I recall reading on a WoW discussion board, during the brief period of time that I was playing it a bit, a rant about those "casual" gamers, which the posters defined as someone who spends 15 hours per week or less playing WoW.
That's a part-time job.
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.
"Easy" might be a better word. When I say simple I don't mean simplistic, and there is a distinction.
Casual gamer is being used as a put-down in the thread.
I wasn't using it as a put-down and I hope it didn't come across in that manner. After all, my wife is one of the casual gamers in my group!
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.
Definitely. My sister's boyfriend was playing with us for a while in our 4e game; he had little interest in it, but was joining in because my sister wanted to play. He wasn't enjoying it, and he was having trouble sustaining interest through hour-long combats in particular, so he gracefully bowed out.
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.
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.
I completely agree. My wife wouldn't choose to play D&D if I wasn't already running a game, nor does she give the game much thought outside of the game session. She started off enjoying our 4e game, but was getting fatigued by the long combats and round-by-round fiddly modifiers. After ditching 4e and playing some Basic D&D, and now DDN, she's always having a lot of fun during the game. She gets pretty engaged in the game world and comes up with a lot of creative ideas. I'm never going to catch her reading my D&D books for fun, but she brings a lot to our gaming sessions.
And yeah, by far the worst attitudes tend to come from the more zealous gamers, in particular ones who develop tunnel vision when it comes to certain aspects of the game.
Having successfully run campaigns with Fantasy Hero (and not streamlined, either) for over 50 casual gamers, many with no previous gaming experience, I'm convinced that, all else being equal, ease of play at the table is far more important than simplicity of character generation. Casuals generally don't mind help with character generation or even using pregens, but the response to "help" at the table is far more mixed.
I agree on ease of play at the table. My general experience with RPGs is that complex character generation usually results in complex character sheets, which inhibit ease of play at the table. I haven't played much Hero (and it's been a very long time since I did play it), but I've had that experience with GURPS. More stuff on the character sheet -- especially numbers -- tends to make it harder to use during play.
Being at a table with mostly casuals, I want character generation to be relatively simple
for my sake. But I don't want it so simple that they are constantly asking me how to tweak things to make their complex character idea.
I like character generation to be quick and simple for everybody's sake.
#1 for me is simplify the character sheets. (Plus, don't make a particular sheet mandatory)
Absolutely. If you need to track all of the numbers that go into determining the total modifier on a skill, attack bonus, AC, etc, then keep all of that on a separate "worksheet" and not on the main character sheet. It's just more visual clutter that generally isn't needed during play and just makes the game look more complicated than it is.
Casual means easy play and without needing to get involved. IME casual players are sort of like shy folks joining a new group. It may take them longer to join in completely, but the learning curve to be incorporated needs to be at their speed each week. Simple [starting] character sheets is the first way. #2 is allowing them to not need to memorize all the rest of the rules, but that's a whole other conversation.
I agree about the learning curve. I think that's where the 3e and 4e "starter sets" really failed; after about 3rd level, it was assumed that players were now ready to make the leap to the full-on game system, and I think it can take a lot of more casual players longer than that to really warm up to the game. If the game starts to feel like homework, you're going to lose those players.
Not having to memorize all of the rules is another great point, and that's also a good illustration of how 4e wasn't the right game for casual players. To play a fighter (simplest character sheet) in BD&D or AD&D, there was a pretty small subset of the rules that you needed to know to get started and play through a combat encounter. 4e retains those basic concepts but adds a great number of concepts that a new player needs to know right from the start or which are very likely to come up within the first few minutes of play (tracking hit points versus tracking hit points, healing surges, and temporary hit points is a good example).
4e combat with casual players can be a train wreck. There are a ton of decisions to make that heavily depend on tactical awareness and rules fluency. When players don't have a grasp on their powers or don't immediately understand all of the keywords and rules concepts involved, combat speed can slow to a crawl. I like exciting combat, but boring combat is just awful.
That was my experience as well. My opinion on 4e might be different had I played it with a group of players who were all invested in the game and knew the rules well. I only had one (out of 4) of those in my 4e group, so the experience was just short of being a train wreck. One of the players (my sister) was a fairly experienced gamer, but she had become more of a casual gamer over time and didn't care to buy and read yet another set of rulebooks.
In my experience casual gamers take longer to make decisions and care more about the world than the rules.
Yes. My wife's take after starting with 4e and then playing some Basic D&D: "in 4th edition, it felt like we were just interacting with numbers and rules. In this game, it feels like we're interacting with the world and actual characters. Now I'm starting to understand why you like playing these games."
First, I want to see a wide variety of mechanically simple character concepts -- not just fighters. Just like rules-savvy players, casual gamers still want to play the character type they're interested in. They just don't want a character that involves a lot of micro-management or subtle rules-dependent tactical choices. Essentials had a lot of good design work in this direction.
Absolutely.
Second, I want players to have choices, but I want those choices to be anchored in the in-game reality. Casual players don't have a problem if fire magic works better against ice elementals -- that makes sense. Where casual players get confused is in issues like the difference between Daze and Stun -- they represent very similar in-game effects, but the rules difference is substantial. I think backgrounds and themes are good examples of this. Instead of choosing mechanic-based feats, players make a decision about what their character is like and the mechanics fall out of that.
I am in complete agreement. I find it jarring when mechanics aren't tied to the in-game reality, and I've seen the casual gamers in my group really struggle with that. It pulls them out of the game and back to "interacting with the rules" instead of "interacting with the world."
*I* couldn't tell you the difference between Daze and Stun without looking it up.
Game mechanics need to go back to modeling in-game concepts. There's always been a bit of it going the other way, but creating in-game concepts to represent a mechanic seemed to really gain momentum in 3e and come out in full force in 4e.
