PDA

View Full Version : Casual players....all RPGs



shadzar
2009-08-23, 12:52 AM
I was reading something over on ENWorld ( http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/263925-will-d-d-ever-able-regain-base-casual-players.html ) and got to thinking, what does the crowd here think?

1: Are there no more casual players?
2: Are there too many casual players?
3: What defines someone as a casual player?
3a: What defines a serious or hardcore player?
4: Do you want more, less, or even number of casual players vs other types?

While the original thread is solely about D&D, this can go for all RPGs either tabletop, live-action, and I will plunge into the murky depths and include MMOs. That way the three major types of RPGs and varied playstyles are included for completeness in the discussion.

I will offer my thoughts after others have had some time to weigh in, so that they do not sway others, but are given a chance to give their honest opinions first. You do not have to respond about any RPG style you do not play or know about, but please indicate if you are talking about MMO, live-action, or tabletop so that others will be able to understand your posts in context.

lsfreak
2009-08-23, 01:12 AM
I'll do the two I know, D&D3.5 and MMO's (specifically WoW).

I'd define casual as opposite of optimizing. A casual player sees something, it sounds awesome, they take it. Little to no research on the subject nor understanding of the real mechanics behind the class (i.e. knowledge of spell slots versus knowledge of action economy and using spell slots to break it).

In MMO's, flavor-of-the-month builds/classes fall into this as well; people who don't really know the mechanics, but heard of something that happens to be smashing faces, and so they do that. This distinction gets a little blurred in WoW, at least, because there's a lot of... knowledge-lacking people in the high-ranking guilds, and a lot of people who just don't have the time investment to play even though they know how to optimize better than 99% of players.

Yes, there are casual players. Problems occur when casuals mix with those who optimize because oftentimes one side sees people trying to break the game as much as possible and the other sees people who are completely ineffective.

As to too many/not enough/whatever, I don't really think there is such a thing. It's just that both sides like to call each other out on how they play, and they need to work hard in order to be effective as together. Often this isn't possible, and people find other groups that are either optimizers or casuals. The problem is rather than a person is in one group, surrounded by people of the other group.

TheThan
2009-08-23, 01:28 AM
This issue actually came up in my most recent dnd night. I won’t elaborate on it since its not the point of this thread. But still let me say this.


Casual players are people who don’t take the game too seriously, they’re the ones that take power attack because it sounds cool, not because it’s mechanically better than the other choices out there.
Casual players don’t bother with optimization, character tiers or anything else of that matter. They are there to enjoy the company of their friends, and maybe smash some goblins.

The hardcore gamers are there for the exact opposite reasons. They take power attack because it’s the best choice mechanically, not because it sounds cool. They are the ones that bother with optimization, character tiers and a variety of other topics you can find on forums like this. they are there for the enjoyment of the game, and maybe hang out with friends too.

Are either of these different types of players bad? Nope quite the contrary, they are both good and even necessary for several reasons.

Without the hardcore gamers there would be no one to “break” the game and find out its flaws. There would be no one to test the limits of the system and find out where everything falls and where they should fall.

Yet without the casual players, there would be no dnd at all. I believe that most people that play the game are casual players (call them the silent majority). They don’t bother to go to the charop forums or read up on the latest works that their gaming company is working on. They just get together with their friends and play their RPGs. If it was just up to the “hardcore” gamers, the industry would collapse because they are the vocal minority. Any company relies on sales to survive. Casual players create those sales.

Kizara
2009-08-23, 01:47 AM
I made up this post 3 times, the first 2 ended up talking about video games and casual gamers for them instead of RPGs, so I had to revise it again.


1) Anyone who asserts this is himself a casual player, or is trying to make a pitch.

2) Probably. But I can't really speak of world demographics.

3a) Someone who does not value gaming as a valuable experience by itself, but only a means to interact socially.

b) Also, someone who does not value immersion, realism, conflict or challenge (in both obstacles in game and in character building decisions) in their game.

c) If you feel someone can go 'overboard' in roleplaying, and roleplay too well or to an uncomfortable extent (within a very small margin of reason), you are a casual gamer. This does not apply if you simply have a 'sore spot': having issue with someone's detailed description of rape if you yourself were traumatized by it is understandable. On the other hand, if someone is roleplaying a romance in detail, and you are wierded out by this, you are a casual gamer.

d) Someone who is offended at being called a casual gamer/player. While it is certinally possible to be a CP and not be offended by it, it is not possible to not be one and be offended at being called one. If you take RPing seriously, and someone implies that you don't, its nothing more then a joke to you, as they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

e) If the concept of understanding the rules of the RP you play (and I don't even mean 100% perfect knowledge, simply a solid, working understanding) seems like a foolish or unneccessary hassle to you, you are a CP. If the system you played can be learned in 15 mins, you are likely a CP.

Note: Even casual gamers derive some entertainment from the actual roleplaying game, want some sort of mild challange, and tolerate an amount of basic roleplaying, the qualifier comes in the degrees.

4) The inverse of the above. To play a game for a immersive, deep experience focused on the development of your characters and the story they participate in. You can also be a serious gamer and play for PVP and feel that there's no such thing as 'too optimized' and so forth. The main point, is that you CARE about the game, and take it SERIOUSLY. As opposed to not giving half a crap, wanting a free pass, never wanting your character to be seriously inconvienced or having your 'shtick' not work and generally viewing those that are passionate about the hobby with disdain.

5) I'd like casual gamers to continue to enjoy their half-arsed games and perhaps occasionally participate in them for giggles. I'd like people that actually take what I do seriously to join me and have a great time.

I'm not talking about MMORPGs in the above. In fact, the few MMO games I've played (Utopia and Evony) I welcome casual players, as they are nothing but food for my empire's fire.

Mystic Muse
2009-08-23, 01:56 AM
I don't think there's any way to describe most types of gamer as casual or hardcore.

sadi
2009-08-23, 02:11 AM
3.5d&d to start, The group I'm currently playing in ranges in size any given week from 6-8 players. There are a couple people that get bored very easily, and when they do, they start playing WOW because amazingly enough there are 5 laptops on the table.

I think I'm the only person who has planned ahead on what prestige class I definitely want to take and getting the prerequisites for it. I'm playing a druid/wizard going for arcane heirophant. As for class distribution, I'm the only divine caster besides paladins/rangers, and the only arcane caster besides a bard. There are one or two people that aren't extremely casual as far as I can tell, but there is no way I could ever classify any of them as hard-core players. They all like to roleplay, but as far as I can tell the vast majority could care less about character optimization, or power gaming.

DMfromTheAbyss
2009-08-23, 03:35 AM
Before the subject can be breached and really talked about you really need to define the difference between hardcore and casual players.

For different games, heck for different people it means different things.

You'd be hard pressed to get many people to agree as these are highly subjective terms. Are we basing it on play time, how seriously they take the roleplaying, how seriously they take min/maxing or optimization, or how GOOD they are at either min/maxing and optimization or roleplaying. (not the same thing as trying, I've known people who take a game extremely lighthearted and can break any given system in a heartbeat, others that try to extremely hard and fail, similarly some relaxed guy who can roleplay his characterincreadibly well without effort, other guy takes it increadibly serious but just isn't that good..)

Some people take the RP element to be of primary importance, others take knoledge of the rules as of primary importance. I've known some actors who were "hardcore" about their character's inner feelings, but couldn't write up a powerful character (nor would they care to) if their life depended on it.

In WOW specifically I've heard casual tossed around for anybody who doesn't spend over x hours a day on it.

In general though hardcore is generally anybody who is more into it or better than the speaker. (in relationship to whatever they feel is most important in the game) casual is anyone who spends less time or effort on the "important" aspects of the game than the speaker.

For instance I think for me to consider someone a hard core gamer they have to have played more games than me, Casual is anybody in fewer than 3 games at once for less than 20 years:smalltongue: (clearly an exageration but a valid one)

See it doesn't work for everybody that way.. it's subjective, not objective, and thus hard to define.

Timeras
2009-08-23, 03:37 AM
I consider myself a casual gamer in both Pen & Paper and in MMO, and the definitions of casuals offered here just don't describe me.
When I create a character I do plan ahead and I choose feats based on how usefull they are.
And to me D&D is not just the means to interact socially. I wouldn't need the game for that.
I just don't spend nearly as much time on it as many others. My group can't meet every week, we try playing once a month. So sometimes I hardly think about the game for weeks.

shadzar
2009-08-23, 03:48 AM
Before the subject can be breached and really talked about you really need to define the difference between hardcore and casual players.

For different games, heck for different people it means different things.

You'd be hard pressed to get many people to agree as these are highly subjective terms.

That is why everyone is being asked for what they define the terms as, and then to describe the other things as well. Thus the reason no definition was given up front by myself, so people did not think those definitions form myself was being forced upon the discussion.

I will abstain a little longer for giving my answers to let the thread get good roots and discussion going. I don't think everyone will agree, but it is something to think about when you sit down to play and look at the games you have played if the terms or there definitions mean anything to you.

Kizara
2009-08-23, 03:52 AM
I consider myself a casual gamer in both Pen & Paper and in MMO, and the definitions of casuals offered here just don't describe me.
When I create a character I do plan ahead and I choose feats based on how usefull they are.
And to me D&D is not just the means to interact socially. I wouldn't need the game for that.
I just don't spend nearly as much time on it as many others. My group can't meet every week, we try playing once a month. So sometimes I hardly think about the game for weeks.

I would put forward that anything you do not think about for weeks is not of great importance to you.

This is the most fundamental defination of casual: if something is not particularly important to you, if you don't have much of an emoitional stake in it, and you don't take it terribly seriously, you are only "casually" involved in it.

Timeras
2009-08-23, 04:12 AM
I would put forward that anything you do not think about for weeks is not of great importance to you.


It is impotrant to me. But I just don't have the oppotunity to play more often. And unless I'm the GM and need to prepare for the next session there is not much point in spending time with it in the meantime.

What do you think I should do between two gaming sessions?

Kizara
2009-08-23, 04:49 AM
It is impotrant to me. But I just don't have the oppotunity to play more often. And unless I'm the GM and need to prepare for the next session there is not much point in spending time with it in the meantime.

What do you think I should do between two gaming sessions?

Its hard to get into a game when you play that infrequently. Playing so infrequently is a sign you are more casual about it (its not important enough for you to make more time for it), but to answer your direct question:

1) its a bit understandable that you do not have enough immersion or connection to your character, playing so infrequently, that you do not even think about him/her in the meantime. However, see my previous post. Also note that it is possible to be only casually involved with something and wish greater and more serious involvement.

2) Some things you can think of:

a) Your character build. Where are you going next? Is there other options you haven't considered? Are you sure your feat build is the best for both your mechanical and RPing needs? You can probably find a way to get a bit more bang-for-your-buck out of your levels if you just find a bit more optimial class instead of just taking that PrC from 1-10, etc.

You will likely respond to this by saying you don't care enough about such things to bother with them this much. This contributes to you being a casual gamer.

b) Your roleplaying, and your characters in-game goals. Think about how you are going to found your own gym and teach your masterful martial-arts to eager pupils, how you are going to build your own custom fortress (and use the SBGB to stat it out) and so forth. Consider how he feels about Laranna Trinksome the half-dragon warlock you met last session, and what he's going to do about it.

c) Consider your combat tactics, spells/maneavuers/whatever prepared, and other changable choices. Could you get more milage out of different ones? Did any seem ineffectual last session, or were you missing something? For instance, when I play a CZilla I require that I can solve anything with magic or melee ability, at most requiring 1 day to rest and re-prepare. If my mastery of my spell list is insufficent to do this, I DEMAND it of myself to be more prepared for next session.

d) Consider what other characters you might want to play, and work on their builds. Possibly as a refinement of your current character and the lessons you have learned from his build. Then, go over their build and spell lists a few more times to ensure you have the best choices not only for optimal resources, but to suit your playstyle and how you want to run the character.

Timeras
2009-08-23, 05:53 AM
1) its a bit understandable that you do not have enough immersion or connection to your character, playing so infrequently, This is not about connection to the character. Years ago, when we were still going to school, we met every week. The characters I play now are no less important to me than those I played back then.



a) Your character build. Where are you going next? Is there other options you haven't considered? Are you sure your feat build is the best for both your mechanical and RPing needs? You can probably find a way to get a bit more bang-for-your-buck out of your levels if you just find a bit more optimial class instead of just taking that PrC from 1-10, etc. I make those decisions when I create a character. Some decisions may change over time,but usually that's only minor changes. Also, we don't use everything that's ever been published and we decided, that nobody may have more than one PrC, so there is not that much time to be spent on this.

You will likely respond to this by saying you don't care enough about such things to bother with them this much. This contributes to you being a casual gamer. Nope. I do care about these things, and I'm a casual player. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Also, I do consider roleplaying and tactics. Believe me, I know the spells and abilities of my characters. But I don't spend all my free time on that.

shadzar
2009-08-23, 07:16 AM
I figure the night-owls have had enough time and 1/4 day is long enough to wait, so out of order I will answer my own questions.

All types of RPGs:

3- A casual player is one who is there more for the social interaction than the game itself being played. They may have mild interest in it, but is really just there to be with the other people. They may also be there just so they can say they play the game in question.

3a-Serious player is one who is there for the game. They may prefer the people they play with in a specific group, or may not care who they play with. They want to play the game.

Hardcore...I wouldn't use this term as I think it to be misleading. I would use the term fanatic. Not fan, but fanatic. They go over the top, and may buy everything for every game they have heard about and had interest in. These are the ones that cause problems in gaming because they are the ones discussed on the news with regards to the game in a negative light. Example: WoW players who play for over 12 hours a day. There life is focused solely on gaming and little to nothing else. It may be one game or multiple.

Casual and Serious have no dollar signs attached to them, nor do they have any connection to event or conventions. Both may or may not go to any events about the game, or conventions as it is moot. Often times it will be those fanatics that go to the conventions and use it to define one group or another. Still a fanatic may not even attend events about their preferred game(s). Also with Casual and Serious it has nothing to do with how much product you own relating to the game in question. A casual player may have more money than brains and have a copy of every book made, but still only be there for the "social activity". They would likely be there for any activity with a gang of people. Serious players could own nothing of the game. Maybe they don't have money to buy what they need due to economic reasons, but they devote their attention to the game with what little they do have rather than drifting away to play WoW or talk on the phone during the game. Anyone may take an emergency phone call, so those are not part of any of the three types.

1- Thanks to 3rd edition D&D, and the OGL there are many more casual gamers today than ever for tabletop games. The internet has been filled with casual gamers prior to the invention of true MMOs. Live-action has always had a lot of casual gamers. The sheer numbers of people that oculd be in a live-action game means that some will not have any true role in the game other than filler or likened to extras in a money. There is no shortage of casual gamers or casual/"beer and pretzel" games.

2- There are too many casual gamers. The reason for this is not their playstyle, but their population size. Some people like to sit around a semi-game to chat and talk, but the problem comes when those people are introduced into serious games in mass numbers that cause to disrupt games. It is like anything else in gaming, where some personalities and playstyles just don't always work together. Separated they are fine by themselves, but mixed it cause problem for one side, the other or even both. Casual may be disrupting the serious. Serious injected into casual could cause the casual to become uptight and not as relaxed as they want, or a fight breaks out over dating someones mother (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/15656.html).

4- Personally, I could do without casual gamers. Maybe one in a group of 5 or more people is fine, because their interaction won't be missed, and likely wouldn't be a cause to stop a game due to disruption. If they do, then the fact they were a casual gamer was not likely to be the cause of the disruption in the first place. I found myself often sitting in EQ looking for people that were wanting to do something, rather than just sit around using the 3d simulated environment as a mud or chatroom. It honestly dumbfounded me. Paying $30 a month to have your "avatar" dressed up to chat, what you could do for free on AIM, YAHOO, or any other number of group/room chatting sites or softwares. It is there money to spend, but sometimes they would have to be cleared out and punted from the game for being disruptive and blockign places to people actually playing the game trying to get too. Like that group of women at the grocery store blocking the entrance/exit chatting when people are trying to get in or out of the store.

As long as the players get along in the group, and are not causing problems for others there it no harm being done by any type of player. As with other aspects of choosing a group to join, make sure they are playing for the same reason you are so that you do not become the problem. It may sound like a peanut butter in my chocolate type of thing, but it is all about compatibility of the players themselves.

I wish games were not treated and designed just for casual gamers, because they do seem to outnumber the more serious players these days. This just lowers the quality of the games, and might as well make any game just a campfire to sit around and get that warm feeling by while you chat. Also be afraid of the fanatics. They also can cause much more harm that the casual players to not only a group of players, but games in general. Games should not be made for them to say they play just because they will spend more money on them than any other single person. Also some of them are dangerous when it comes to gaming in general. I have seem them get into fights over simple card games, to video games, etc.

So whichever type you think you are, or claim to be; whether you agree with my definitions or not; what type you see other people as...I will just say to make sure you are playing for the same reason as the rest of your group so that everyone is enjoying the time and no one is there at the expense of another.

:smallsmile:

Myrmex
2009-08-23, 07:45 AM
Without the hardcore gamers there would be no one to “break” the game and find out its flaws. There would be no one to test the limits of the system and find out where everything falls and where they should fall.

But without anyone to find the flaws, the flaws wouldn't exist! Or at least, they wouldn't matter....

I wish for the old days where great cleave & improved critical were on the short list for feats my single class barbarians were going to take.

Temet Nosce
2009-08-23, 08:10 AM
1: Are there no more casual players?
2: Are there too many casual players?
3: What defines someone as a casual player?
3a: What defines a serious or hardcore player?
4: Do you want more, less, or even number of casual players vs other types?


First, I apologize if someone has already covered what I'm about say in more depth but I only skimmed the thread (currently playing an old MMO and minimized waiting for a spawn)

1. Not only are there not "no more casual players" but the numbers (which have always been high) have skyrocketed in recent times due to increasing coverage of gaming (in both the video and to a lesser extent the P&P sense) in the mainstream.

2. Yes. I've been saying this for over a decade now. The number of casual players currently involved has completely altered the way gaming as a hobby works. In video games, the massive market of casual players has created an equally massive tendency for developers to pander to them since they control a large number of what you might call dollar votes in favor of their kind of game. The same thing has happened in P&P to an extent, but in P&P (and in online games such as MMOs) there's a second effect... Social interaction.

Lets take D&D for an example. You join a 3.5 game and the DM informs you its high powered and RP intensive. You carefully build up a full spellcasting monstronsity with a detailed background going into tons of minutiae and show up for the game. Well, the DM inserts bad cartoon stuff, two of the players don't show, the others spend more time talking OOC than RPing and only one of them is optimized well enough to count as average for their level. This has actually happened to me, and the campaign got worse as it went. Similarly, in MMOs you end up dealing with people who are incompetent on a level which is purely awe inspiring (they can't figure out how to pick up quests, constantly get adds, and generally are actually of negative use).

3. Casual gamers are people with a low degree of interest in the game, as compared to their other interests and who wish to invest little time and effort into said game. To elaborate, in P&P a casual player may show up sporadically for sessions, won't bother planning out his character, will generally ignore side plots or character interests, and the like.

In an MMO, a casual player may spend more time talking/emoting/wandering around/doing random non game related activities than progressing in the game or experiencing content. He is unlikely to be familiar with more than the basics of his class and role (if that), will quite probably have scheduled times he does things (if he progresses at all), and will spend most of his time in groups.

3a. A serious player is simply that. Someone who plays seriously, having a vested interest in and fondness for the game. In P&P they have at least a general idea of their characters build, take the time to RP, and try to show up for all sessions. In MMOs they are familiar with how to play their class, spend their time in game actually playing, will probably solo if he can't find or isn't interested in a group, and rarely schedule the timing of things as they'll be spending their time in game playing anyways.

A hardcore player is... well first off substantially rarer. They're the players who obsess over and are fascinated with the game. In P&P they know not just the basic rules but the majority of the more esoteric ones as well, they write up long involved backgrounds for their characters and RP them with care, they usually have a full character build plotted out from the beginning, and will show up for every session barring a serious emergency. In MMOs they know every trick of playing their class, often spend more time than they can afford to playing (even to the detriment of basic health), rarely stop doing things in game unless there's something they must wait on, and never schedule things in game since they'll be playing anyways. They make up roughly 1% (or less) of the gaming crowd and have a high turnover rate since it requires lots of spare time.

4. I want not just less casuals, but none. I've been increasingly saddened by the dominance of casuals in the gaming sphere and the resulting tendency away from my style (which depending on the game varies between serious and hardcore). The incredibly large numbers of casual players currently around have skewed video gaming almost completely to cater to them and has had a serious effect on P&P as well. None of my favorite games are things which were released recently, and I have serious trouble finding campaigns to join that suit my style.

shadzar
2009-08-23, 09:27 PM
Nobody else? Everyone got busy and ready to watch Miss Universe pageant and forgot about forums? :smallbiggrin:

CarpeGuitarrem
2009-08-23, 09:40 PM
I'm a casual player, because I like having a good spot of variety to my life. I have no aspirations of making D&D and RPGs a major focus of my life, but rather something fun that I dip into. I don't see it as an end in itself, but as a means of entertainment, a way of thinking about story in a different light, a fun game to play with friends.

But I have a real life, outside of D&D. That's why I'm a casual gamer. And honestly, I don't really see a big problem with it.

Raum
2009-08-23, 09:42 PM
Nobody else? Your definitions are suspect at best and selve serving at worst. Your argument boils down to "anyone less obsessed is somehow less of a gamer and is unwanted".

Getting past the fallacies, that's a relativistic measurement...and there is always someone more obsessed. Even your post points some out as 'fanatics'. What stops them from stating you don't have the proper commitment to meet some definition of a 'good gamer'? After all, that's what you've said.

erikun
2009-08-23, 10:16 PM
On the one hand, I see Casual gamers as people who play for the enjoyment - to hang out with friends, to pretend to be their favorite fantasy character, to have a good time. The RPG is only a means to the end. They don't much care if they're playing D&D, or WoW, or Smash Bros Brawl, just so long as they get to hang out with the group and have fun. Sure, they'll prefer one form or entertainment over another, but they usually won't outright reject something unless they really dislike it (or had their hopes up on something else).

The other side would probably be the Serious gamer, although "detail-oriented" would probably be a better name. The detail-oriented gamer is one who pours over information about their subject, tries to implement their subject to the greatest degree, and usually insists on accuracy to their preference. They tend towards the X-Mastery side of things. Please note that I didn't specify D&D rules mastery: a player engrossed in medieval history can be just as detail-oriented in their character as on engrossed in the D&D rules, just in a different direction. At the best you have excellent homebrewers, highly descriptive DMs, and people who can help anyone with any system problems they encounter. At worst you have rules lawyers, elitists, and the Stop Having Fun Guy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys).

What you've described as the "Casual gamer" is really what I'd call the Flirting gamer. The Flirt is the one who only has a passing interest in the game at the time. They may stop in, they may not - it depends on if they're interesting in playing right now. This is the person who will play WoW for a couple of weeks, then drop off without notice. Possibly come back and whine that everyone's at higher level now and won't hang out with them.

While in MMOs the Flirting Casual gamer is pretty common (from what I've seen), I haven't seen many in D&D. Well, not face-to-face D&D anyways. Probably the reason is that most Casual gamers are interesting in hanging out, and they generally don't get to if they don't show up. :smalltongue: Rather, most of the sparotic gamers I've met in real life are the Flirting Serious gamers - the people who really want to play and talk about their awesome builds and past characters, but can't be bothered to take next Saturday off because they forgot. Again.

As for your questions:

Yes, there are Casual gamers.

No, I don't think there are too many. All gamers were Casual once. They're they ones who buy the game. They're the ones who sell the new content. If there were no Casual gamers, there would be no new games.

Casual vs. Serious isn't the problem. The problem, if any, is the individual group. Each group has their own "level" of seriousness with the game. When the game starts up, everyone will have their own level, or amount they take the game seriously. In order for the group to work, they need to end up ironing out their differences, and play on about the same level. A group full of Casuals with one Serious gamer trying to overshadow everyone will either see the Serious kicked out, of the group playing something else. A group full of Serious with some Casual gamers goofing off and ignoring every session will see the Casuals not invited back.

Of course, it doesn't need to happen. The Serious can tone down, or use their mastery to get the others more interested. The Casual can gradually get more interested in the game, especially the more interested they become with the particular campaign.

shadzar
2009-08-23, 11:31 PM
Your definitions are suspect at best and selve serving at worst. Your argument boils down to "anyone less obsessed is somehow less of a gamer and is unwanted".

Getting past the fallacies, that's a relativistic measurement...and there is always someone more obsessed. Even your post points some out as 'fanatics'. What stops them from stating you don't have the proper commitment to meet some definition of a 'good gamer'? After all, that's what you've said.

I am guessing you did not read the first post as you did not answer any of the questions in it. It is helpful when entering into a discussion to find out what that discussion is. Please feel free to read the first post and come back to join in the discussion.

elliott20
2009-08-23, 11:58 PM
I personally find the casual/hardcore spectrum to not be that useful in terms of game development and design.

the core behind separating a casual gamer vs. a hardcore gamer is basically talking about consumption behavior. Casual gamers are basically people who do not expend a lot of resources on gaming, be it time/money/what have you. It also makes the assumption that somehow "hardcore" is more preferable to "casual", which to me is a bit insulting.

The first question that really should be asked is what constitutes a hardcore/casual gamer. (I view them as on the same spectrum since you clearly cannot be both at the same time)

And then you have to ask yourself this for each game you might conjure up. The profile of a hardcore WoW gamer is not going to be anywhere near the same as a hardcore D&D gamer. The games, while both having the acronym "RPG" mixed in it's descriptor somewhere, is nowhere close to each other in terms of actual game play experience.

From a raw consumption behavior, casual is simply a term for people who won't spend the extra money or time to the hobby. (and from a marketing standpoint, the most important)

But from the player's point of view it becomes really murky because there is no bottom line measurement to be concerned about. Every player will have a different interpretation of casual vs. hardcore.

as we can see in this thread right here, we already have 4-5 different interpretations of casual vs. hardcore behavior, with lines being drawn from roleplaying prowess, to detail orientation, to mechanical mastery of the system (with the last one also often assuming that someone who has mechanically mastered the system will press every advantage possible, regardless of who he plays with).

It might SEEM like these are all compatible comparison but it's really not. Meaningful dialogue about what is a casual gamer cannot be pinned down, thus you cannot meaningfully discuss what to DO with them should you see them.

If I were to go with marketing viewpoint on casual vs. hardcore, would I feel that casual gamers are bad? NO! Of course not! This means I'm SELLING. The increase of casual gamers means my product is performing well and that my beloved hobby is actually becoming more popular. Why would I want this to go the other way?

It's not like consumer behavior and skill level cannot be changed or trained. It's not like an casual gamer will automatically be BAD for the game, so why so hung up about it?

I can go on about that last bit, but that might not be the focus of this topic, so I'll save that for later.

shadzar
2009-08-24, 12:09 AM
It's not like consumer behavior and skill level cannot be changed or trained. It's not like an casual gamer will automatically be BAD for the game, so why so hung up about it?

I can go on about that last bit, but that might not be the focus of this topic, so I'll save that for later.

Assuming I quoted the last part correctly you mention, feel free to go on about it. Casual or hardcore does have different meanings depending on which area of gaming you come from, so a player standpoint vs the business standpoint, will give much more insight into IF it is possible to use this term correctly, and maybe figure out why it is use differently in terms of consumer vs business, and help figure out why it may not even be a good term to use since it isn't being used the same way by all, but causes more confusion because the two "sides" are using it different ways, let alone how consumers may be using it differently amongst themselves.

Only by looking at all sides of the argument, as it were, can we see what is really being discussed when the term "casual/serious/hardcore gamer" comes up. :smallsmile:

The questions are being asked of the OOTS community, not just the players of the OOTS community, so the industry-side/economic-view, should be included, as you ARE a part of the OOTS community. :smallsmile:

Dracomorph
2009-08-24, 12:12 AM
big ol' thing

Man, + like a million.

For video games in specific, I am unhappy with some of the trends I see lately, not because they cater more to casual/flirty gamers, but because even in serious games, pretty 3d graphics are getting priority over depth of gameplay/story. There's nothing wrong with beautiful backgrounds, wrinkly alien enemies, and precisely RL-accurate scorch marks, but they should be small details compared to moving over the scenery, smiting your foe, and using your flamethrower.

I would be totally fine if the majority of games catered to people with the attention span (and gaming talent, when applicable) of a gnat, provided I felt those things were the emphasis of the experience.

Any balance between casual and hardcore gamers is a case-by-case thing based more on personality of the players than some overarching structure.

sofawall
2009-08-24, 12:26 AM
But I have a real life, outside of D&D. That's why I'm a casual gamer.

Oh no you didn't!

What you said implied that the rest of us only have lives in D&D, and that is why we play it so much.

Or maybe that we play D&D so much, it's all that is in our lives.

Either way, you called us Cheeto-eating basement dwellers, and I take offense.

Doc Roc
2009-08-24, 12:28 AM
Either way, you called us Cheeto-eating basement dwellers, and I take offense.

I eat tasty all-natural cheese puffs now and then, but really only on the second floor.
Supposedly I'm not a casual gamer. :)

elliott20
2009-08-24, 12:46 AM
Fair enough, Shadzar. :)

To me, the entire notion that casual gamers are ruining the industry is to utter and total bunk. A lot of gamers I know get all worked up because a lot of game companies are aiming to please the casual gaming crowd and they believe this often leads to massive shovel-ware glut.

The thing is, while the glut of shovel-ware is kind of saddening, their rage often feels highly misguided.

For one, like I said earlier, I believe that the casual vs. hardcore dichotomy is fundamentally a false one. casual vs. hardcore, from a business standpoint, is never about game play behavior and all about consumption. In that context, it works because you can reasonably figure out some kind of metric measurement. That is, a hardcore player might be someone who spends more than X number of hours on a particular game over the course of it's product lifecycle, or might be willing to spend x-amount of dollars or more on a particular game.

But when you try to mix gamer expectations into the mix on what they define as casual and what they define as hardcore, you have problems.

the end result is that often companies will assume that a hardcore game MUST be difficult, MUST be complex, MUST have a ridiculous learning curve, while casual games MUST be easy, but is totally ok to let itself become EXTREMELY sloppy in execution.

And even that implementation is not even. Some games define hardcore vs. casual not as game play elements, but as stylistic elements. Mario games? casual. Modern Warfare? Hardcore.

The vocabulary itself is fundamentally flawed. And a gaming company that tries to cater to this kind of definition WILL FAIL at producing a decent product, casual or hardcore.

What a lot of designers fail to realize is that while casual gamers might not be as choosy as hardcore gamers, certain aspects of good game design STILL apply to a product. You need to have a polished presentation, your game SHOULD have intuitive controls, your game should be relatively bug free, and your game should not play like it's work. These are all just good game design concepts, not just concepts that apply towards just hardcore or casual players. In those cases, hardcore/casual is a meaningless label, because a good game will appeal to BOTH hardcore and casual people. If a game is meant to be enjoyed for 2 hours over it's entire lifecycle, but man those are some GREAT 2 hours, (i.e. ICO) that game WILL be popular even among hardcore gamers, even if their devotion to it is short. (But that's the point, isn't it?)

that is, a lot of game designers assume that a hardcore game is mutually exclusive from a casual game. And this is something that is often reinforced by the millions of frothing "hardcore" gamers who think that Wii is the anti-christ.

The only thing you CAN get away with when it comes to using hardcore vs. casual is when you want to talk about experience with certain gaming conventions. i.e. most RPG vets when they pick up a new RPG will know instantly that stats management and resource management is the name of the game here and they will know that characters are generally expected to improve over time, that they will be expected to cut down monsters for money and experience, etc. And in those cases, you can actually design a game that requires a certain level of genre awareness.

That is probably the only time you can actually reasonably use gaming behavior as a good yardstick for game development.

beyond that, every game, even the casual ones, have great potential of being a game that even the hardcore crowd can like. Here's the truth, any popular game is capable of becoming a hardcore game. What sets a hardcore game apart from a casual game is not the game itself, but the people who play it.

take Punch-Out, for example. 3 buttons, left jab, right jab, and a super punch. Extremely simple to learn. but you know what, even nearly two decades later after it's conception, people are still playing this game. There are communities of people who dedicate themselves to mastering this game, and playing it at such a high level of proficiency it's inhuman.

Here, I must touch on another fallacy that I find with the hardcore vs. casual issue: that low entry barrier is a BAD thing. To be fair, yes, a game that is totally without strategic merit where any random newbie can step in and wreck a veterans day due to sheer luck is too much. (And that would just be a bad game) But I remember people clamoring that the new Street Fighter HD Remix is just catering to n00bs and that it's going to ruin the community. Oh wait, doing a dragon punch is too simple now! you're ruining the game because you're not requiring your players to fire off inputs at 1/60 second precisions!

That kind of talk to me annoys to me no end. It's pretty self-explanatory though, so I'll just leave that for now unless people want to go into that.

shadzar
2009-08-24, 01:12 AM
Fair enough, Shadzar. :)

Very insightful and well worth the read and time it took you to type it up. Thanks for that side so the discussion has more evenness and less bias towards just the player/consumer-side of things. :smallsmile:

Jerthanis
2009-08-24, 04:34 AM
I define Casual and Hardcore differently.

A Casual gamer will call a game short because they're a little hungry, and that one place that does the fish closes in two hours and they don't want to cut it close.

A Hardcore gamer will call a game when they're out of material, because Denny's is open all night.

A Casual gamer won't think about the game between sessions at all, or might idly daydream about cool scenes from the previous session on the bus.

A Hardcore gamer will analyze events from so many angles and plan for such contingencies between games that Batman himself would be impressed.

A Casual gamer would replace Game night with Charades, a Movie, Card games, or some other activity if they had the sudden whim.

A Hardcore gamer holds Game night sacrosanct, if the activity is replaced with another activity, it's probably because the GM is in hospital or >70% of the players are out of town.

A Casual gamer will retire one day, and pass his or her dice along to their younger siblings or cousins.

A Hardcore gamer will regret on his or her deathbed that he or she will never roleplay again.


With this definition, Hardcore gamers are the ones who were gaming before they knew what it was, and will always game, and the Casual ones are the ones brought in by the external appeal of the game's marketing or being friends with a Hardcore gamer. If there ARE fewer casual gamers in relation to hardcore gamers, it just means the game isn't reaching as many people, or the Hardcore is getting worse at making friends. Personally, I think there are plenty of casual gamers out there, but it may be difficult to network them.

Kizara
2009-08-24, 05:05 AM
I define Casual and Hardcore differently.

A Casual gamer will call a game short because they're a little hungry, and that one place that does the fish closes in two hours and they don't want to cut it close.

A Hardcore gamer will call a game when they're out of material, because Denny's is open all night.

A Casual gamer won't think about the game between sessions at all, or might idly daydream about cool scenes from the previous session on the bus.

A Hardcore gamer will analyze events from so many angles and plan for such contingencies between games that Batman himself would be impressed.

A Casual gamer would replace Game night with Charades, a Movie, Card games, or some other activity if they had the sudden whim.

A Hardcore gamer holds Game night sacrosanct, if the activity is replaced with another activity, it's probably because the GM is in hospital or >70% of the players are out of town.

A Casual gamer will retire one day, and pass his or her dice along to their younger siblings or cousins.

A Hardcore gamer will regret on his or her deathbed that he or she will never roleplay again.


With this definition, Hardcore gamers are the ones who were gaming before they knew what it was, and will always game, and the Casual ones are the ones brought in by the external appeal of the game's marketing or being friends with a Hardcore gamer. If there ARE fewer casual gamers in relation to hardcore gamers, it just means the game isn't reaching as many people, or the Hardcore is getting worse at making friends. Personally, I think there are plenty of casual gamers out there, but it may be difficult to network them.

This.

Great definitions.

Totally Guy
2009-08-24, 06:35 AM
Hardcore is personified by Miko.
Casual is personified by Belkar.

They already had an epic battle and Hardcore would have won but Casual had friends.:smalltongue:

Raum
2009-08-24, 08:12 AM
I am guessing you did not read the first post as you did not answer any of the questions in it. Oh I read it. But, I agree with elliot20. You can't create an objective answer when all of your questions and definitions are relative. One major issue with relative arguments is simply that you can extend it into absurdity.

Take some of the above positions as an example: "Casual gamers aren't serious enough / don't spend enough money / don't take enough time and are therefore bad for the game in some fashion." Where does the line get drawn? Do you have to play for 5 hours per month or 55? Do you need to spend $50 per year or $500 on gaming related items? How serious do we need to take the game - as seriously as an exam? Perhaps as seriously as the need for shelter and food?

elliott20
2009-08-24, 08:26 AM
that is in essence why I don't feel the talk about casual vs. hardcore is really a useful discussion except in the broadest, generalizing strokes. Any company that chooses to adapt to using that as a model in their marketing will end up just neglecting good design practices, and gamers themselves will just use this as another way to divide gamers up into ranks.

AmberVael
2009-08-24, 08:49 AM
d) Someone who is offended at being called a casual gamer/player. While it is certinally possible to be a CP and not be offended by it, it is not possible to not be one and be offended at being called one. If you take RPing seriously, and someone implies that you don't, its nothing more then a joke to you, as they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

This implies a level of self-certainty that some people just don't have.

By the definitions people have thrown out there- by practically every other one- I am a hardcore gamer. I don't think most people would deny that I take the games more seriously than most around me.

However...

I am very much sensitive to what others do, say, and think. I don't have the confidence it requires to just brush it off as a joke, just because I am indeed vulnerable to what others say, even if I can rationally say it is false.

So yes, for some people, your measure is quite good. For people who can confidently say 'this is me!' your test will stand up. But for others... you'll essentially be dismissing them because they don't have the confidence you seem to be assuming exists in everyone.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-24, 09:04 AM
(1) Yes, there are plenty, but they tend to be the minority on game-heavy forums like this one.

(2) No.

(3) Essentially, somebody who wants to meet with friends, and likes to do something fun together. It's less important what they do together, and gaming is certainly ok. He wants to play anything, with friends.

(3a) Essentially, somebody who wants to play the game, and (generally) likes to be good at it. It's less important who he plays with. He wants to play this game, with anyone.

(4) It's not quite as black-and-white as this, but a sliding scale. On the one hand, people who take a game Way Too Seriously tend to be annoying (see Scrub (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Scrub) and StopHavingFunGuy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys)). On the other hand, people who take a game Not Seriously Enough may have to be explained the rules over and over again, or miss sessions because it's just not important enough to them to be there every week, or start doing random things IC for no reason.

shadzar
2009-08-24, 09:36 AM
Oh I read it. But, I agree with elliot20. You can't create an objective answer when all of your questions and definitions are relative. One major issue with relative arguments is simply that you can extend it into absurdity.

Take some of the above positions as an example: "Casual gamers aren't serious enough / don't spend enough money / don't take enough time and are therefore bad for the game in some fashion." Where does the line get drawn? Do you have to play for 5 hours per month or 55? Do you need to spend $50 per year or $500 on gaming related items? How serious do we need to take the game - as seriously as an exam? Perhaps as seriously as the need for shelter and food?

:smallannoyed: Each person was asked their subjective thoughts on the questions. If you don't want to answer the questions, then what is your problem with others wishing to do so, if they wish their own thoughts to be entered into the discussion?

Now other than the original questions asked, you have posed even more. So how about YOU answer some of them, then other people will see what you have to say other than seeming to say others shouldn't because it won't be objective. Opinions are never objective, so of course people will be giving their subjective thoughts as they were asked. :smallconfused:

Let me pose another question to you in response to yours above.

Should you allow a player at your game that has no interest int he game at all and wishes to be there just to be near their SO, and more often than not disrupts the game trying to get the attention of their SO away from the game but onto them? They are even below what would be considered a casual gamer, and a disruption or tag-a-long player wasting space. So the question:

What would you do in the case of an SO that has no interest in the game, other than to be near their SO that causes disruption at every turn? Are they casual, serious, or hardcore gamer; are they even a gamer?

Additional question: Should this person be at least somewhat serious about the game rather than disrupt it for others just to get the attention of their SO?

Some if this is not really for this thread, but semi-on-topic. The point being when looking around your game table, what type of gamers do YOU see, and what affects do the different types of gamers have on your group, your gaming, and the games themselves (playing them and the design of them)?

This question was the hidden one in the original post, that many others have answered through the other questions, or have given thought about. One in particular answered it directly.

Whether you agree with another about how they define the terms, you have your right to not define them for yourself, but likewise others have the right TO define them for themselves. IF some decide there is an objective way of looking at the terms, then it will be for them to decide on what grounds that objectivity is made based on the criteria they set up for themselves and their own groups. :smallsmile:

Kurald Galain
2009-08-24, 09:55 AM
Should you allow a player at your game that has no interest int he game at all and wishes to be there just to be near their SO, and more often than not disrupts the game trying to get the attention of their SO away from the game but onto them?

Wait, that's a loaded question. The point here is that somebody is being disruptive; whether this person is a "casual" or "serious" gamer (or the mildly insulting not-a-gamer-at-all) is immaterial.

Frerezar
2009-08-24, 11:30 AM
Well i think we all know people who are casual, and even thou anyone can make logical semantic arguments as why it is inapropiate to call someone casual, it can be annoying.
As a side note i consider myself a hardcore player of anything I play, it is just my obsesive nature. And i just wanna point out that i am kinda poor so i posses all books i need in pdf format.
That being said i think it´s important to point out I have a lot of friends who are casual players, and a lot who are hardcore. The important thing is to be able to change your approach to the game as you start adn ask yourself. Is this a game that will deman all my RP and number crunching power or is this gonna be a lol ogm kind of game? And whatever the answer is be able to have fun with both.

The only real problem comes when the product becomes simpler enought so casual players are more drawn towards it without any effort. And that makes the game less challenging and enjoyable to hardcore players (4th ed cough cough).

shadzar
2009-08-24, 11:37 AM
Wait, that's a loaded question. The point here is that somebody is being disruptive; whether this person is a "casual" or "serious" gamer (or the mildly insulting not-a-gamer-at-all) is immaterial.

Kind of. But I have seen said girl attending games with her boyfriend and calling herself a casual gamer because she goes to "game meetings" for the casual activity. Is she wrong in what she calls herself? Is just being near a game enough to make someone a gamer?

There is where it comes into play, be it insulting, or just dry facts.

Disruptive players can be of any type, classification, or style. But does such a person that doesn't actually play, even constitute being a gamer, let alone a casual one just for attending and not ever participating?

That is the real crux of the question. Some of those people will argue all week long that they are a gamer because they are at the games, and a casual gamer, simply because they are not serious about the game being the reason they don't play it.

:smallconfused:

AmberVael
2009-08-24, 12:10 PM
Kind of. But I have seen said girl attending games with her boyfriend and calling herself a casual gamer because she goes to "game meetings" for the casual activity. Is she wrong in what she calls herself? Is just being near a game enough to make someone a gamer?

There is where it comes into play, be it insulting, or just dry facts.

Disruptive players can be of any type, classification, or style. But does such a person that doesn't actually play, even constitute being a gamer, let alone a casual one just for attending and not ever participating?

That is the real crux of the question. Some of those people will argue all week long that they are a gamer because they are at the games, and a casual gamer, simply because they are not serious about the game being the reason they don't play it.

:smallconfused:

Standing near a game does not make a person a gamer, much as standing in a forest does not make a person a tree, to adapt the words of one of my favorite authors. :smallamused:

Granted, someone might enjoy watching and learning about a game, theorizing and understanding it as more of a spectator sport... and I suppose I might allow it then. But the type of person you're talking about? No. I wouldn't call them a gamer.

Mike_G
2009-08-24, 12:16 PM
Wow this is getting a bit heated.

I think some of us are bringing a lot of baggage. That, combined with poorly defined terms at the center of the debate, is going to make this more a shouting match than a civil discussion.

My opinion is that there is a continuum from "very casual, barely interested in the game" player to the "cares waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much, carries his folder of gaming stuff on a date, yells at you if you didn't optimize your character enough" guy.

It's a big tent. There's room for everyone in the hobby. Nobody is "ruining" it for the rest of us. Casual gamers keep WOTC solvent and hardcore gamers make the internet safe for more than porn. The companies will market to both groups. Use as much or as little of the rules as you like.

There may not be room for everybody at any given table.

A group does well when there is osme agreement on just where along the continuum they fall.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-24, 03:33 PM
Kind of. But I have seen said girl attending games with her boyfriend and calling herself a casual gamer because she goes to "game meetings" for the casual activity.
So have I. By my definition, if she plays the game, then she's a gamer. On the other hand, I do not consider this an important distinction.

This is one of those things that should be talked out. Is she interested but shy? Clingy and doesn't want to leave her bf alone? Jealous and in need of constant attention? Nice but with a different mindset than you? It could be lots of things, and most of them aren't bad at all.

Remember Hanlon's Razor: never assume malice where incompetence suffices. In other words, don't assume she's a bad person because it usually is just people misunderstanding each other.

Fixer
2009-08-24, 03:47 PM
I just started a Saga game for two of my nephews, a neighbor, and my son.

My eldest nephew is a serious gamer. When he first started playing (2 games ago) he made a 'cool' character, and promptly got him killed in stupidity. Next he took some effort to make a character and it died in the next game due to bad luck (but he had fun dying...). Now, he is thinking optimizing and how to get what he wants out of the character, without thinking about the cool factor.

My other players are still all about the cool factor, and are definitely casual players.

Thus, my eldest is a serious gamer and I have three casuals. All of them are enjoying themselves, and they want to play more often than I am willing to run (once / 2 weeks, if they keep their grades / behavior up). Thus, I believe all types are necessary to really enjoy the game.


My old group had three optimizers and one casual. I think that was too top-heavy because the optimizers kept trying to one-up and that didn't work out well.

Doc Roc
2009-08-24, 04:29 PM
{Rub-a-dub-dub, Jake scrubs his own tub.}

AmberVael
2009-08-24, 04:36 PM
So have I. By my definition, if she plays the game, then she's a gamer. On the other hand, I do not consider this an important distinction.

From what he said, I was under the impression that she didn't actually play the game at all, but just showed up and socialized.

Knaight
2009-08-24, 04:44 PM
The only real problem comes when the product becomes simpler enought so casual players are more drawn towards it without any effort. And that makes the game less challenging and enjoyable to hardcore players (4th ed cough cough).

Which assumes that the complexity comes from the product. I prefer a system that gets out of my way, so I can focus more on the role playing side. I would define 4e as too rules heavy, although its hardly difficult to play. You can't wing it as a GM, where you can lighter systems, which can still be enjoyable to hard core players, as long as the system has options that are distinct from one another, or guidelines on bending it on the spot that do the same thing. If the product is very simple and has these options, there is no problem. Relying on a product to get people who like to focus on the game and focus on crunch as much as one does is the problem.

oxybe
2009-08-24, 04:56 PM
1: Are there no more casual players?
2: Are there too many casual players?
3: What defines someone as a casual player?
3a: What defines a serious or hardcore player?
4: Do you want more, less, or even number of casual players vs other types?


1) wrong, at least at my table. most gamers i know are "casual". gaming is part of their lives, but only part. we have other interests.

2) bring in the newbies! i've got my core group of gamers, and i've seen newbies come and go. worst thing that happens is that they find they don't like the game and never come back. best case scenario, my druid has a new pack mule :smallbiggrin:

i rarely turn away new blood and most of my group has no issues letting new players try a game or two out.

3)casuals don't have much emotional investment in the game. for them, D&D is just another pastime, instead of playing poker and drinking with the guys, they pretend to be magical elves and whatnot. they might be a bit bummed if they miss a session, but nothing big. life goes on.

3a) serious players have a deeper emotional investment. be it a deeper investment in the social aspect, or the story itself, these guys look forward to the next session and plan a few things. what the character did during downtime, maybe the next level or two's feats/powers/whatnot. they swap emails with the GM on ideas to improve the game. it not just "the game", but the entirety of it.

hardcore players have a bit "too much" emotional investment. i've yet to meet someone i'd call "hardcore" but i would put it at a threshold between "serious" and "social issues". as in living-breathing-eating-sleeping-"the game".

4) more casuals. the more people you bring into the game, the more people are exposed to it, and thus, breed more "serious" players.

Gygax and Arneson are dead and the old guard isn't becoming any younger, heck i'm only 23(almost 24) and i've already got a dozen years of play under my belt. most the guys i game with are older by a few years and a few are 10+. some are now married & with kids. we have a few younger guys come in though, and i'm more then happy to show them the ropes. they might not always stick around, but some do.

GoatToucher
2009-08-24, 05:31 PM
It seems that people are taking this subject as an opportunity to define themselves as "Elite" gamers, which consequently implies that gamers that do not meet their (you must admit: totally arbitrary) criteria for greatness are somehow lacking. The snubbed players feel... well, snubbed, and the would-be elites afford themselves a certain level of superiority, despite the arbitrary nature of their "eliteness".

This issue (as it has been treated thus far) asks two questions: Who is good for the gaming industry, and thus, the hobby? and Who is a good player?

As for the former, I would suggest that the issue of casual versus hardcore has little to do with the success of the industry. A "Casual" gamer who only plays one game once a month, might buy the hell out of the supplements for that one game. A "Hardcore" gamer might eschew titles from the corporate gaming machine, working mostly from homebrews and buying from independent publishers.

As for the second question, I don't think that "How often does he play?" and "How much does he spend?" are particularly good questions to ask to determine someone's worth as a gamer. One might play two games a week in a library of game books and be an absolute tool. One might play once a month, only owning a players handbook, and make the game more fun for everyone.

To close, let's 86 this geek cred schpeckel waving. Play your game or games, have fun and create fun, and be content.

Tiki Snakes
2009-08-24, 05:54 PM
I'm not going to get overly involved in this debate, I think.

Because, quite frankly, Casual vs Hardcore is two things. Firstly, it is a debate about Computer Gamers. Secondly, it is (even in it's original context), blooping retarded.

Simply put, I do not think that the question has any relevance to the subject at hand, nor any merit in and of itself.

Raum
2009-08-24, 06:46 PM
:smallannoyed: Each person was asked their subjective thoughts on the questions. If you don't want to answer the questions, then what is your problem with others wishing to do so, if they wish their own thoughts to be entered into the discussion?Sigh, my intent was not to irritate you. I'm simply pointing out that several are making judgments not merely stating subjective thoughts. Perhaps it's a pet peeve of mine, but judgment without rational thought leads to many of today's issues whether small or large. In this case, it led to some posters classifying people meeting various criteria as bad for gaming in some fashion. It fails the same logic tests most prejudices fail.


Now other than the original questions asked, you have posed even more. So how about YOU answer some of them, then other people will see what you have to say other than seeming to say others shouldn't because it won't be objective. Opinions are never objective, so of course people will be giving their subjective thoughts as they were asked. :smallconfused:If it will help you, I'll take a stab at it: "3: What defines someone as a casual player?" - Definitions - "casual" is defined variously as: Occurring at irregular or infrequent intervals; occasional
Being without ceremony or formality; relaxed
Showing little interest or concern; nonchalant
Lenient; permissive
Not serious or thorough; superficial
...and others...For our purposes, "player" may be defined as "a person who takes part or is skilled in some game or sport". So a "casual player" may be any person taking part in a game who is anything from lenient in applying rules, to playing without ceremony, to playing infrequently, or even playing with little interest. "3a: What defines a serious or hardcore player?" - "Serious" is variously defined as: Grave in quality or manner
Carried out in earnest
Deeply interested or involved
Being of such import as to cause anxiety
Concerned with important rather than trivial matters
...and others... Again, a serious player may be several things...from someone who is deeply interested to someone who plays earnestly or even someone who stresses over the game. "1: Are there no more casual players?" - Casual players almost cetainly exist. Depending on the definition used, they may even outnumber other players.
"2: Are there too many casual players?" - No.
"4: Do you want more, less, or even number of casual players vs other types?" - I'd like to see more players of any and all types. As for some ratio of casual player to serious player, I don't really think it matters. But, if I were to choose one, I'd like to see several times as many casual players as serious. After all, that's how the hobby and industry grow...by introducing gaming to new players and interesting a few enough to become serious.As an aside, one reason I suspect gaming hasn't grown in the US (gaming (board or pen & paper) is much more common (per capita) in Germany as a comparison) is because few gamers foster a culture which welcomes new people to the game. All too often they're 'newbies' and 'not good enough' or 'not serious enough'.


Let me pose another question to you in response to yours above.

Should you allow a player at your game that has no interest int he game at all and wishes to be there just to be near their SO, and more often than not disrupts the game trying to get the attention of their SO away from the game but onto them? They are even below what would be considered a casual gamer, and a disruption or tag-a-long player wasting space. This isn't a game issue, it's a social issue. In my experience, it happens less as you age...a spouse will either join and play, put hard limits on times, or pull the other spouse away from gaming entirely. It depends on the couple's priorities. The situation you describe is a dysfunctional relationship.


So the question:

What would you do in the case of an SO that has no interest in the game, other than to be near their SO that causes disruption at every turn? Are they casual, serious, or hardcore gamer; are they even a gamer?They're probably not a gamer...at least for that game. As for what I'd do, I'd simply ask them to make a choice. Join our activity or find another they'd consider more fun.


Additional question: Should this person be at least somewhat serious about the game rather than disrupt it for others just to get the attention of their SO?Again, it sounds like a dysfunctional relationship. But I expect some modicum of courtesy at any social activity from all parties involved.


Some if this is not really for this thread, but semi-on-topic. The point being when looking around your game table, what type of gamers do YOU see, and what affects do the different types of gamers have on your group, your gaming, and the games themselves (playing them and the design of them)?They run the gamut. Some of my friends, including myself, have played since the 70s or 80s. Others are relatively new to the game. Some devote lots of time to it and others only devote the time spent around the table to gaming. Some have invested thousands into gaming books and materials, others only have a few books. In some cases, only I (or whomever was GMing) had the books for a new system we were trying out.


This question was the hidden one in the original post, that many others have answered through the other questions, or have given thought about. One in particular answered it directly.

Whether you agree with another about how they define the terms, you have your right to not define them for yourself, but likewise others have the right TO define them for themselves. IF some decide there is an objective way of looking at the terms, then it will be for them to decide on what grounds that objectivity is made based on the criteria they set up for themselves and their own groups. :smallsmile:At the risk of irritating you again, I'll point out that any statement made in public is open to criticism. Particularly fallacious statements.

The situation you describe above sounds like someone who is there only to spend time with her boyfriend. When the activity gets in the way of that, she becomes disruptive. Worse, she's being discourteous and, possibly, deceptive in her reasons for attending. If this description fits, you should note it has very little to do with the activity of gaming. As such, it needs to be addressed outside of the game.

elliott20
2009-08-24, 09:17 PM
As for the second question, I don't think that "How often does he play?" and "How much does he spend?" are particularly good questions to ask to determine someone's worth as a gamer. One might play two games a week in a library of game books and be an absolute tool. One might play once a month, only owning a players handbook, and make the game more fun for everyone.

I'm fairly certain that was a response to my post, to which I must say that I think you're misunderstanding me. When I offered those two particular definitions, I am not making a judgment on a person's cred as a gamer. That has nothing to do with it. Like I said, that is the kind of metrics that a company would use to measure when they talk about casual vs. hardcore. Again, it is PURELY from a consumer behavior standpoint, not some kind of skill/moral judgment of the players in question, just as movie production companies would do analysis on how many movies they expect a particular demographic to see or how much money they will spend during their movie experience. There is no actual judgment, just number crunching.

Analysis as such is meant to devoid emotional baggage or attachment to the label.

And like I said, that is one of the few valid applications of the hardcore/casual spectrum.

shadzar
2009-08-24, 11:56 PM
Wow this is getting a bit heated.

I think some of us are bringing a lot of baggage. That, combined with poorly defined terms at the center of the debate, is going to make this more a shouting match than a civil discussion.

That is just it, there aren't any defined terms, save for some on a website somewhere or usenet group that some people sat down some time ago. That is why the questions are posed to everyone here, what do they think about the current player population and how they would define the terms. How get to define these terms, and should they be defined at all; or are they even definable or that we should stop trying to use the terms? :smallsmile:


From what he said, I was under the impression that she didn't actually play the game at all, but just showed up and socialized.

Takes up a seat at the table where someone with a character could instead be sitting.


Firstly, it is a debate about Computer Gamers.

Sadly, no. That is what those people on Wikipedia would have you believe by the term, but there have been casual gamers since the days of "beer and pretzels" games started. By my definition at least, where the game is not as important as the socializing. While you would be hard pressed to find many original wargamers to be casual, RPG and other type of gamer like board, card, etc has always had the casual crowd. Within this thread though we aredealing primarily with the RPG aspect. :smallsmile:

elliott20
2009-08-25, 12:08 AM
from a business standpoint, casual often just means low utility customers.

shadzar
2009-08-25, 12:25 AM
from a business standpoint, casual often just means low utility customers.

Serious would be the ones with subscriptions to the publications surrounding a product then?

Hardcore, would be the ones that buy everything related to the product including Happy Meals and capsule toys to collect all the products paraphernalia?

elliott20
2009-08-25, 12:38 AM
well, traditionally, when it comes to games, you generally have four distinct groups.

casual: low utility consumers. they don't spend much, don't use much.

hardcore: high utility, be it in monetary or usage time

transitional: gamers who might have once been one of the other high utility group but because of other responsibilities like family, career, and such, have become lower utility consumers. the key here is that this group might still have a high utility for a game or at least have a higher price tolerance than some casuals, but generally will not devote nearly as much as the hardcore

specialized gamers: gamers who focuses solely on one particular type of product. High utility for a particular kind of game. i.e. someone who has high utility for shooters. Or in the case of TRPG gamers, maybe someone who focuses on rules lite games.

keep in mind, these are all on a spectrum, and are not always clear cut.