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

[LFK]

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 is the semantic argument.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Heh, they just can't win can they?

I've been told, repeatedly mind you, that 4e is a dumbing down of 3e, which in turn was a dumbing down of earlier D&D. That all these "streamlined rules" were just a way to make the game more appealing to 14 year old WOW players with ADD.

Now I'm being told that 4e is actually TOO complicated to teach to new players, that there are just so many rules, and so much complexity that it's being compared to Starfleet Battles - probably one of the absolute most complicated set of rules on the planet.

Irony. It doth taste so sweet.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Characters in WoW have a bewildering array of powers at high level. The inner workings of gameplay are highly complex. And yet WoW is incredibly popular and noob friendly. It manages this by starting off simple, increasing complexity gradually as you level up. Also, only the hardcore raiders and pvpers need to know how the 'to hit' mechanisms and so forth really work. You can get by fine without this knowledge.

 

[Mallus]

Characters in WoW have a bewildering array of powers at high level. The inner workings of gameplay are highly complex. And yet WoW is incredibly popular and noob friendly.

So is the Pokemon franchise, and it's aimed at an even younger demographic. The 'too complex' argument is usual raised by people who have no idea how complicated popular children's games are these days.

You can get by fine without this knowledge.

And in-depth analysis and tutorials are freely available on the Internet.

edit: OT - I doubt D&D can ever regain it's once-sizable 'casual player base'. D&D can never be new again, and most of those huge number of players were because D&D was a fad, a cultural phenomenon. Plus, what was revolutionary about D&D's design and subject matter have long since been spread throughout the global entertainment culture. There's much more competition now from the games it spawned.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree with the premise.

We have next to nothing other than anecdotal data about the behavior of the gamers of the 80s. We have only a small amount more data now - WotC may have something better, or it could be derived from sales data, but we don't have access to either.

So, I don't know if there are a greater or smaller number of casual gamers - and I have to question anyone else's estimations as well.

 

[Ariosto]

I am still not inclined to speculate as to the premise. Again, any definition of "casual" is going to cover a spectrum -- and we may have different ones in mind.

The WoW and Pokemon examples seem not even to offer one, and I have no reason to think that players of those are somehow constitutionally "casual" (or otherwise put off by complexity). Indeed, those I have known personally seemed at least as much "into" their games as the D&Ders. Play once a week? They would be in withdrawal!

 

[TerraDave]

Their something to the premise:

-Around say 1980, the game was a fad and basically had to have a lot of casual players (and there is some data on this, at least extent of sales)

-Computer games do have a lower barrier of entry to kids who are into this stuff, and a lot more of them play those games then tabletop RPGs.

But then again

-But in, say, the last 15 years, I don't know if there is anyway to point to a real trend for tabletop player composition.

-Going way back, there is a tendency to complicate, and then streamline. You could find plenty of complicated games twenty years ago, and plenty of simplified (retro, indi, d20, arguably 4E...) games today.

With the facts out of the way, now we can get into semantics.

I used to have more casual players because I was in a better position to recruit them. Know my few long term players are "semi-casual" in part becuase I have DMed with them so long and brought them up to speed. But I have only one player I truly consider hard-core enough to say GM himself.

As implied above, players also cycle, from casual, to hardcore, to lapsed, maybe back to casual. Its not a fixed thing.

 

[Mallus]

The WoW and Pokemon examples seem not even to offer one, and I have no reason to think that players of those are somehow constitutionally "casual" (or otherwise put off by complexity).

In discussions like these "causal" gets used as an approximate synonym for 'wider, more numerous mainstream audience' cf. the 'causal video/computer game market'. It means mass-market as opposed to niche market.

Indeed, those I have known personally seemed at least as much "into" their games as the D&Ders.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that WoW and Pokemon didn't have committed --or even obsessed and addicted-- players. What they did suggest was both of those game franchises have large user bases that, because of the sheer size, must contain a sizable number of less committed, more causal players, much like D&D had in the early 1980s.

 

[weem]

Chose "I disagree with the premise. D&D has as many "casual" players as ever." - not based on any hard numbers, but because it's D&D - It has a large number of players and of those there are always bound to be a good chunk of "casual" gamers.

I'm a casual MMO player myself and despite how odd that sounds, I know many more

 

[Gentlegamer]

I can testify that the participants of the long running AD&D game I ran were all casual players. I was the only "hardcore" player. Really, all you need is one "hardcore" player as DM per group. The rest falls into place.

Mind you, the campaign took place during the 90s, so perhaps things have changed since.