Will D&D ever be able to regain a base of "casual" players?
- Thread starter Clavis
- Start date
I'd say that under 4E, D&D has easily the most casual gamers (and gamers, period) that it's ever had in the ten years I've been playing, at least in my experience. 3E made things much simpler to learn to play, and 4E continued that; in my experience, the D&Der population has been steadily climbing since 2000. (And now it also gets free regular endorsements on the site of one of the most popular webcomics online, too.)
We could go around and round about the premise, tossing anecdotal evidence and speculation back and forth.
Maybe more productive is looking into ways to appeal more to the casual.
A group that's stinky, slovenly, ill-mannered and weird might not have much success regardless of the qualities of the game itself; first impressions can count for a lot.
A hefty rules-set can be off-putting unless the casual player does not have to deal with it. I think this is a bit of a hurdle with 4e, especially as powers pile up with the gaining of levels. If one plays frequently, then things become -- and remain! -- familiar. With infrequent play, one may find oneself having to relearn repeatedly.
Just looking at a rulebook of 300+ pages can be daunting to someone used to considering 30+ "complex". Axis & Allies, at 32 pp., is probably about the accustomed limit of comfort level for a lot of casual gamers. Basic D&D books twice as long work because they're largely filled with monsters and other stuff for DMs to use as they choose -- and because the descriptions of monsters and magic can be entertaining to read rather than dryly technical.
Classic hex-and-counter wargames from Avalon Hill, SPI, etc., were often in the range from 4 pages of basic rules and another 6 to 8 of advanced, to maybe 10 to 12 each (perhaps a few more for scenarios). Even Squad Leader and Rise and Decline of the Third Reich weigh in at only 36 pages (of admittedly small type) each.
The digest-sized booklets of the original Dungeons & Dragons and Traveller sets, translated to full-sized (half as many) pages, would be about 55 pp. and 72 pp. respectively -- and most of those are directed at the referee. (Men & Magic would make an 18-page PHB!).
Even the 1st ed. AD&D PHB came to only 128 pages. 59 of those were devoted to spells; 10 to psionics, bards, and an alignment graph; 2 to the known planes of existence; 1 to suggested agreements for the division of treasure; and 6 to reference sheets and advertising; leaving 50 pp. of more general interest.
Having 30 pages of tactical combat rules in 4e is pretty impressive. RuneQuest (1st ed.) devoted 16 pages (in two chapters) to matters related to fighting, including equipment lists and training rules.
In short, the game has become pretty complex (especially in terms of what a player is expected to know) -- and maybe looks even more complicated than it is. The contrast with the "heyday of the early 80s" is pretty notable.
The rules-set seems to me pretty solidly directed at the "hard core", as was the previous version. That does not mean it can't have enduring appeal for casual players, but it does seem to suggest that some special attention to their needs may be called for.
Maybe more productive is looking into ways to appeal more to the casual.
A group that's stinky, slovenly, ill-mannered and weird might not have much success regardless of the qualities of the game itself; first impressions can count for a lot.
A hefty rules-set can be off-putting unless the casual player does not have to deal with it. I think this is a bit of a hurdle with 4e, especially as powers pile up with the gaining of levels. If one plays frequently, then things become -- and remain! -- familiar. With infrequent play, one may find oneself having to relearn repeatedly.
Just looking at a rulebook of 300+ pages can be daunting to someone used to considering 30+ "complex". Axis & Allies, at 32 pp., is probably about the accustomed limit of comfort level for a lot of casual gamers. Basic D&D books twice as long work because they're largely filled with monsters and other stuff for DMs to use as they choose -- and because the descriptions of monsters and magic can be entertaining to read rather than dryly technical.
Classic hex-and-counter wargames from Avalon Hill, SPI, etc., were often in the range from 4 pages of basic rules and another 6 to 8 of advanced, to maybe 10 to 12 each (perhaps a few more for scenarios). Even Squad Leader and Rise and Decline of the Third Reich weigh in at only 36 pages (of admittedly small type) each.
The digest-sized booklets of the original Dungeons & Dragons and Traveller sets, translated to full-sized (half as many) pages, would be about 55 pp. and 72 pp. respectively -- and most of those are directed at the referee. (Men & Magic would make an 18-page PHB!).
Even the 1st ed. AD&D PHB came to only 128 pages. 59 of those were devoted to spells; 10 to psionics, bards, and an alignment graph; 2 to the known planes of existence; 1 to suggested agreements for the division of treasure; and 6 to reference sheets and advertising; leaving 50 pp. of more general interest.
Having 30 pages of tactical combat rules in 4e is pretty impressive. RuneQuest (1st ed.) devoted 16 pages (in two chapters) to matters related to fighting, including equipment lists and training rules.
In short, the game has become pretty complex (especially in terms of what a player is expected to know) -- and maybe looks even more complicated than it is. The contrast with the "heyday of the early 80s" is pretty notable.
The rules-set seems to me pretty solidly directed at the "hard core", as was the previous version. That does not mean it can't have enduring appeal for casual players, but it does seem to suggest that some special attention to their needs may be called for.
tuxgeo
Adventurer
For the casual gamer . . .
However, let's throw a bone to the casual players anyway: D&D needs some kind of Basic Set that can be played over and over again, so the casual players can stay casual if that is what they really want most of all. (Though their desires might change over time as they become more accustomed to the game.)
In one of the earlier "5th Edition" threads, I suggested some criteria for a possible Basic Set (see link for details). It still seems much more plausible to me that a Basic Set, with flat, painted (or stamped) plastic tokens* that are as generic (non-representative-of-individual-PCs) as the Monopoly tokens, and containing character generation rules for 5 races, 5 classes, and 5 levels of play, with a highly-replayable encounter-generator or campaign-generator, and sufficient rules to play by forever, would be more likely to become an "everybody has it" sort of game that the big-box stores might consider stocking. (Even for 4th Edition, if WotC wants to go that way.)
What connection does this suggestion have to the casual gamers? This: the cited period in the early 1980's did, in fact, have such a boxed Basic Set available, and people could buy it. Currently, such is not available for 4th Edition, so people cannot buy it.
* [footnote] The solid, 3D tokens included in the "Fantasy Adventure Board Game" released in the UK were far too heavy to be suitable. Semi-representational, at most, is the way to go.
I voted "disagree with the premise" -- but I meant to disagree that the casual players are the "base" of the player population. I don't think they are the base, despite the assumption in the title of this thread.
However, let's throw a bone to the casual players anyway: D&D needs some kind of Basic Set that can be played over and over again, so the casual players can stay casual if that is what they really want most of all. (Though their desires might change over time as they become more accustomed to the game.)
In one of the earlier "5th Edition" threads, I suggested some criteria for a possible Basic Set (see link for details). It still seems much more plausible to me that a Basic Set, with flat, painted (or stamped) plastic tokens* that are as generic (non-representative-of-individual-PCs) as the Monopoly tokens, and containing character generation rules for 5 races, 5 classes, and 5 levels of play, with a highly-replayable encounter-generator or campaign-generator, and sufficient rules to play by forever, would be more likely to become an "everybody has it" sort of game that the big-box stores might consider stocking. (Even for 4th Edition, if WotC wants to go that way.)
What connection does this suggestion have to the casual gamers? This: the cited period in the early 1980's did, in fact, have such a boxed Basic Set available, and people could buy it. Currently, such is not available for 4th Edition, so people cannot buy it.
* [footnote] The solid, 3D tokens included in the "Fantasy Adventure Board Game" released in the UK were far too heavy to be suitable. Semi-representational, at most, is the way to go.
wedgeski
Adventurer
I have been to exactly one D&D convention (GenCon UK a couple of years ago, for 1 day), and consider myself much more than a casual D&D'er. Through every edition I've bought a ton of books, have DM'd one or more regular/semi-regular games of D&D permanently since I was about 16, and maintain a deep and abiding love for roleplaying no matter what else I'm doing with my life.
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.
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.
Oni
First Post
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?
I play every week. I've bought at least ten WotC rulebooks every year since 2001. I subscribe to D&Di. I spend a lot of my free time on an online forum mostly about D&D (here at ENWorld). Which suggests that I'm probaly a hardcore gamer by most reasonable definitions. But I've never been to a con.
Storm Raven
First Post
Of course, the counter argument there is that someone who was truly a hard core gamer would find the money and make the time.
In relation to the "gamer" community as a whole the term "casual" has been going through a lot of criticism over the past couple years.
What differentiates a casual WoW player from a hardcore player? Time per week? The type of content they access? Skill? Knowledgeability? I know people who play 30+ hours a week but do little more than farm tradegoods and use the game as a giant IRC client. I know people running top-tier content, but they only log on for two 4-hour raids per week and only know enough about the game to keep a raid spot.
What about "gamer" as a whole? If I play Bejeweled does that make me casual or hardcore? What if I play Bejeweled on the bus in the morning, during breaks at work, on the bus going home, and for a couple hours solid after dinner? What if i cut out all the bus/work playtime and replace Bejeweled with Fallout 3? I'm playing less but the game is a "serious" game rather than an arcade game.
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.
EricNoah
Adventurer
Computer games?
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.
