Will D&D ever be able to regain a base of "casual" players?

[LFK]

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.

 

[Hussar]

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?

 

[EricNoah]

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.

 

[ggroy]

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).

 

[abhorsen950]

I think im a casual gamer and imo its good to have that mix you need a balance

 

[Wombat]

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.

 

[Ariosto]

RPGA conventions seem well suited to casual play, especially the scenarios designed to be completed in a single session.

 

[Ariosto]

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.

 

[nedjer]

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.

 

[mearls]

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.