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

[kitsune9]

Well, I don't know the market demographics for the industry, so I won't make any comments there as to whether D&D has lost them, still has them, or gaining them.

However, I think even having casual gamers who just maybe have bought the Player's Handbook and really nothing else is fine with me. The more casual players the better, because out of that lot, someone has to be the DM, so the DM will probably pick up the DMG and a MM to boot. If we take the casual gamer population as a whole, then eventually someone is likely to buy a few more books to boost their game or maybe they will switch from casual to serious/hardcore down the road.

I think just about everyone starts out as casual players. We get a rulebook for X the RPG, like it, and then down the road we determine if we want to pick up more books/supplements for the game or if the hobby really "clicks" with us.

 

[Oni]

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.

Kinda.

I was thinking about this earlier regarding those casual groups I spoke about before. I'm not sure that being hardcore into the game aspect is at all necessary. I dated the person running the One Piece game I mentioned earlier and in that time I never once saw her even open a rule book and in fact no one in the group even owned a rule book, the entire thing having been based on a copy of BESM that had long since been returned to the library and never checked out again. The system had basically been pared down to You get X number of stats and X number of things you're good at (modified by up to X number of things you're bad at) and roll under the total. And there were HP and Pirate Points (a basically arbitrary widget players could spend for some narrative control) and that was basically it. Other than coming up with a few NPC's she just ran the whole thing off the top of her head.

I would very much classify her as a casual gamer. Now on the other hand she was definitely a hardcore One Piece fan and had a near encyclopedic knowledge of the setting. Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that enthusiasm that drives a game for the casual gamer isn't going to be system derived (unless the system is the point of the game, but we're leaving rpg territory there). It wasn't that she was into the game, it was that she was into the setting.

I imagine there is something instructive in all this, but haven't quite managed to formulate it into coherent thought.

 

[Ariosto]

That paring down of BESM to a few easily remembered principles is a good example. There's a similar core in old D&D, actually simplified by WotC in making some aspects (notably experience points per level, to-hit progressions and saving throws) more uniform and formulaic.

Old AC and HD are easy to come up with on the fly, and the original set used the same 1d6 damage for the vast majority of monsters.

Spells are the big deal calling for rules-reference, and WotC expanded that with skills and feats and -- in 4e -- the myriad "powers" specific not only to characters but to monsters as well.

Devotees expect all that apparatus, and the need to relearn it all is what makes a new "edition" interesting.

The simpler fundamentals beneath the superstructure are easier to learn and remember. Stat blocks and power listings in 4e are IMO a big step up in utility over the usual 3e presentation -- but the mass of stuff to juggle is "light" only by that comparison.

 

[Ariosto]

I've heard good things about the "D&D Miniatures" game, and "D&D Heroscape" looks promising.

 

[nopantsyet]

I'm going to skip out on the semantic argument and speak more to the heart of the argument. For clarity's sake, when I say "casual," I mean somebody who doesn't read the books in their spare time, doesn't think much about the game except when they're at the table, just like a casual poker player knows the basic rules but doesn't study strategies or practice covering their tells in front of the mirror.

That said, let's not forget that in early editions of D&D the burden of the rules fell squarely on the DM's shoulders. Heck, players weren't even supposed to read DMG or MM in those days. The spirit of the game was built on the foundation of DM secrets. So the most complicated rules that players had to deal with were chargen, which you could do from the book, which the DM would have. So you could (and often did) have a "hardcore" DM running regular games for "casual" players. I remember playing in groups where nobody other than the DM even owned a PH and it worked great.

But rules have evolved. Now there are many more rules per character than there used to be. It's too much for a DM to know it all. THAC0 may have been counter-intuitive, but that was easily solved with a grid on your char sheet; whereas now we have skills and feats. I expect my players to know the rules for their player's abilities, and unless something triggers my DM's spidey sense I let their understanding ride. It's more than the "casual" gamer is likely to be willing to learn.

Also, now we acknowledge the shared experience and responsibility of the game. I expect my players to bring meaningful creative input, not to simply come and roll dice. The expectations of players have elevated significantly while the DMs role has shifted to "arbiter of fun" rather than "keeper of secrets, knower of all things, mouthpiece of the gods."

There are plenty of games that are better suited to casual gaming IMO, and it's much easier to get "non-gamer types" on-board for a game of Settlers than D&D. I wouldn't even propose D&D with casual gamers.

 

[Agamon]

First of all, thanks to the OP for allowing for the fact that the premise may appear flawed in the eyes of others instead of saying, "This is how it is, why is it like that?" and then doggedly defending that stance. Very refreshing.

I've seen, and been a part of, both kinds of groups. And from this point of view, I don't see more or less casual vs hardcore players between when I started in the early 80's, and now. In theory, one may surmise that there are more options for the casual player in this age, but in my small sample of the population, I just don't see it.

I know more players now, but I also know more people, so that hasn't changed. And the ratio of casual vs hardcore is pretty similar.

 

[Oni]

In theory, one may surmise that there are more options for the casual player in this age, but in my small sample of the population, I just don't see it.

It's a sad thing, there are probably a lot of games out there that would appeal to more casual gamers, but ironically one would have be a fairly serious table top gamer to know about them in the first place.

If a really rules light game had more market penetration and publicity it might really do wonders for growing the hobby. A gateway rpg so to speak.


[edit: On an unrelated note, I would very much be curious to see the explanations of those that indicated in the poll that D&D would be better off without casual gamers.]

 

[thecasualoblivion]

If there aren't large amounts of casual players playing D&D, large amounts of casual players don't exist, and RPGs are dead.

 

[mearls]

I would very much classify her as a casual gamer. Now on the other hand she was definitely a hardcore One Piece fan and had a near encyclopedic knowledge of the setting. Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that enthusiasm that drives a game for the casual gamer isn't going to be system derived (unless the system is the point of the game, but we're leaving rpg territory there). It wasn't that she was into the game, it was that she was into the setting.

I imagine there is something instructive in all this, but haven't quite managed to formulate it into coherent thought.

I'm not sure a casual gamer is always going to be system or setting driven. I think there's room for booth, depending on what makes a particular person tick. But I think that your friend is really into One Piece is the key - the game system didn't matter much. What was important was tearing around the world of One Piece. She liked it enough to put the time and effort into running a game.

I think that's why there are plenty of people who believe that system doesn't matter at all, and for them that's correct. They're hardcore about different aspects of the game compared to someone who's more into the rules.

On that level, that's why I think things like GNS do have some value. Regardless of what you think of GNS itself, it points to the basic idea that people have different reasons why they like RPGs. For some people, an RPG is a game they like playing. For others, it's a tool for group storytelling, a way to explore a setting or genre they like. For a lot of people, I think it's a mixture.

 

[UniversalMonster]

Not sure how relevant it is, but over at LFR HQ at GenCon, they literally ran out of new player signup cards. That's after going through around 500+. I had at least 6 "totally new" players in my tables that I had to fetch cards for and two that unfortunately never got a number.