|
What is considered a casual player?
I consider myself a casual player. And I haven’t run into all these issues that MisterSlanky is talking about.
I don’t uber-optimize my characters. At least two of them are fairly average if not under-optimized (not purposefully, the build just didn’t work the way I thought it would), and most of them are versatile rather than uber-optimized or one-trick pony session killers.
And I really haven’t found any scenario that was too tough for a group of characters much like my own. Some have been very tough, some have been easy. I like a good challenge, so I’m not offended by difficult situations.
Again, my experience has not paralleled folks who feel that season 4 particularly is too difficult for casual players.
So what is the definition of a casual player?
|
You have 4 stars and you consider yourself a casual player? Really?
Casual:
-Hasn't surpassed level 7.
-Plays maybe 2-3 times every month? Less?
-Owns PHB and possibly Advanced Player's Guide, but nothing else.
-Doesn't feel like they could GM if asked.
-Isn't 100% fluent with the metaplot or lore but has a vague idea what's going on. They know Lissala is bad.
-Is blissfully unaware of the powers of Swarms, Incorporeal, Special Materials bypassing DR and Darkness.
-Has 6-7 items in their characters inventory.
-They power attack it.
|
|
You have 4 stars and you consider yourself a casual player? Really?
Casual:
-Hasn't surpassed level 7.
-Plays maybe 2-3 times every month? Less?
-Owns PHB and possibly Advanced Player's Guide, but nothing else.
-Doesn't feel like they could GM if asked.
-Isn't 100% fluent with the metaplot or lore but has a vague idea what's going on. They know Lissala is bad.
-Is blissfully unaware of the powers of Swarms, Incorporeal, Special Materials bypassing DR and Darkness.
-Has 6-7 items in their characters inventory.
-They power attack it.
To me, that's how I'd define a new player, not a casual player.
Mister Slanky considers himself a casual player. He's GM'd more than I have, was the V-C of my region for awhile, and so on and so forth.
I consider casual players, someone who just wants to get together and yuk it up with friends for a few hours on any given afternoon or evening.
They don't spend time specifically to optimize their characters. They make characters they think will be fun and may choose some optimizing features. Such as point blank shot and precise shot for an archer build.
But they aren't going to build the kung-fu boar mount so they can charge over difficult terrain and through allies.
They may not buy tons of consumables, but will buy magic items that make sense for their character.
They may not be totally prepared for lots of stuff, but will be moderately prepared for some stuff (like having rope and a torch).
That defines me as a player.
We've had tons of discussions on the boards about the responsibility of players to be prepared and be able to deal with certain things by certain levels.
You can do almost 100% of that with the Core Rulebook.
So to tailor PFS to make it friendly to Andrei and MisterSlanky's definition of a casual player, we have to dumb down the challenge so that being prepared is no longer necessary?
Or as other players and GM's, do we help the casual player learn what is necessary to be prepared (not how to build uber monsters, just be prepared)? Allow them to be casual with an Everburning Torch, an oil of bless weapon, a cold iron dagger and silver arrows.
We can accommodate casual players. But I think the term casual should not be used for players unwilling to learn the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I once shared a table with a new player who had his 7th-level Ezren pregen start throwing daggers in the second fight. We TPK'd.
More than one of my melee PCs invests more in armor class than in damage potential. My only PC death was in the game with the dagger-thrower.
I've met players in my area who would look at those two choices (throwing daggers with your wizard in subtier 7-8, and making an AC character instead of a DPR character) and call them equivalent.
I've also gotten GM eyerolls at those same PCs of mine.
How do we define a casual player?
"Me, and everyone who plays like me."
I'm just waiting for the WOW messageboard flashbacks to kick in.
"The Casuals are ruining the game!"
"I remember when this game was good, when only one percent of the players would finish a module. Now it's too easy!"
I remember those days!
Anyways, Casual... is a term who's meaning changes greatly depending on what we're talking about, who is talking, and quiet possibly their mood. Could be the guy that doesn't like end of the world plots, or it could be the guy who didn't spend 6 days tweaking his build. Very different scales there, and there are probably a few more.
|
|
I'm just waiting for the WOW messageboard flashbacks to kick in.
"The Casuals are ruining the game!"
"I remember when this game was good, when only one percent of the players would finish a module. Now it's too easy!"
I remember those days!
Anyways, Casual... is a term who's meaning changes greatly depending on what we're talking about, who is talking, and quiet possibly their mood. Could be the guy that doesn't like end of the world plots, or it could be the guy who didn't spend 6 days tweaking his build. Very different scales there, and there are probably a few more.
This is exactly my point.
What defines casual? I don't think we can really define it.
I just don't want it to become a nice definition for players who are unwilling to learn the rules, so that the campaign starts to dumb down its challenges to accommodate players who are unwilling to learn the rules of the game.
If its a new player who doesn't know the rules, then other players who are more knowledgeable, and GM's can teach them the rules and strategies for better success.
But willfully ignoring the need to learn how to play the game, I don't feel, is really an attitude that is appropriate for any level (home or organized) of this game, unless you are with a bunch of like-minded players and GMs.
Being that organized play will probably never have a single attitude prevalent throughout the player base, I think it is the responsibility of all players to try to meet in the middle somewhere.
Casual players need to step up to at least the bare minimum (learn the rules, and learn some basic preparation techniques and strategies) and uber-optimizers need to learn to dumb their optimizing acumen down a tad so they aren't being rude to other players by dominating game play.
These are all teachable things that don't require any special character optimization or excessive out of game time.
What it does require is at least a modicum of dedication to your fellow players.
Casual players need to step up to at least the bare minimum (learn the rules, and learn some basic preparation techniques and strategies) and uber-optimizers need to learn to dumb their optimizing acumen down a tad so they aren't being rude to other players by dominating game play.
Do you like... have a hard time making a post without insulting someone or placing blame?
You just said you can't define it, then used the term as an insult. Does that qualify as irony?
|
|
Casual players need to step up to at least the bare minimum (learn the rules, and learn some basic preparation techniques and strategies) and uber-optimizers need to learn to dumb their optimizing acumen down a tad so they aren't being rude to other players by dominating game play.Do you like... have a hard time making a post without insulting someone or placing blame?
You just said you can't define it, then used the term as an insult. Does that qualify as irony?
I didn't insult anyone.
I'm trying to find out what people's definition of casual is.
And so far, what I'm hearing is, its people who are unwilling to learn the rules of the game or take any time (even 30 seconds) to be moderately prepared for adventuring.
If that isn't the consensus definition, then please disabuse me of that notion.
But if casual means that you don't bother to learn the rules of the game... then I don't think PFS or any organized play is the right place for them.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
And hard and fast definition of the 'casual player' is difficult because itself up to questions that are even harder to come to a consensus on. Mostly because everyone has different ideas of what 'casual' means.
Is it:
People that play infrequently?
How infrequently?
People that are new to table-top RPGs?
People that have less time spend on PFS and thus have mechanically 'weaker' characters?
People that understand the rules well, but deliberately choose not to optimize?
It is really hard to say, and I doubt we, as a forum, will make any headway trying to definitively answer any of these questions.
I don’t uber-optimize my characters. At least two of them are fairly average if not under-optimized (not purposefully, the build just didn’t work the way I thought it would), and most of them are versatile rather than uber-optimized or one-trick pony session killers.
And I really haven’t found any scenario that was too tough for a group of characters much like my own. Some have been very tough, some have been easy. I like a good challenge, so I’m not offended by difficult situations.
Again, my experience has not paralleled folks who feel that season 4 particularly is too difficult for casual players.
So what is the definition of a casual player?
What it seems like you're driving at in your OP is 'what defines a non-optimized, but not terrible character.' Is that more accurate, Andrew? Or am I way off base?
|
|
Kinda Walter. You aren't completely off base.
MisterSlanky, in the Rivalry's End GM thread, indicated that 7 of the 9 season 4 scenarios he's played in have been way too difficult and don't accommodate the casual player. He hasn't had fun in almost any of them, and has found them all way too difficult. Specifically he hated Rivalry's End for a host of reasons you can go find out on that thread, but one of them being its difficulty in a couple different locations.
So rather than continue the side-track discussion in that thread, I thought to move it here.
Because his definition of casual and mine, seem very different.
It feels like he is advocating dumbing the scenario challenges down to the lowest common denominator (as far as knowing/learning the rules, and character optimization). Rather than advocating teaching and educating the less knowledgeable players the rules and strategies for survival.
So getting some sort of a consensus of what Casual means, will tremendously help any future discussions on whether PFS is capable of accommodating the casual player or not.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At most, I play in or GM PFS games once or twice a month. I do not build optimized characters, nor do I have any desire to do so. I don't know all the rules because, quite frankly, there are just too many and more are being released all the time. I don't know everything about the campaign setting or PFS's seasonal metaplots because (again) there is a plethora of campaign material (with more being released all the time) and I just don't have time to play or GM every scenario of every season.
Am I a casual gamer?
I don't think so. I'd consider myself an experienced gamer.
I've played and GMed RPGs for 30+ years. I've amassed a huge collection of RPG gaming material. I subscribe to several of Paizo's product lines. I believe I have a good understanding of the Pathfinder rules and a good understanding of PFS organized play.
And I know exactly how my characters should be played, so I do not appreciate sitting at a table and feeling belittled because my character may not be built or equipped the way some other player believes it should be.
I like to believe I'm mature enough to realize there are many different types of players and when I decide to play in a public game at a public venue, I have little to no control over which types of those players I'll be joining. But I would never criticize another player's choices or build or play style.
I just want to have fun with friendly people; I don't need to "win." Regardless, whether I'd be considered a casual player or not, I believe players like me have a place in PFS organized play.
I have no idea if I was on topic or not... ;-)
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Kinda Walter. You aren't completely off base.
MisterSlanky, in the Rivalry's End GM thread, indicated that 7 of the 9 season 4 scenarios he's played in have been way too difficult and don't accommodate the casual player. He hasn't had fun in almost any of them, and has found them all way too difficult. Specifically he hated Rivalry's End for a host of reasons you can go find out on that thread, but one of them being its difficulty in a couple different locations.
So rather than continue the side-track discussion in that thread, I thought to move it here.
Because his definition of casual and mine, seem very different.
It feels like he is advocating dumbing the scenario challenges down to the lowest common denominator (as far as knowing/learning the rules, and character optimization). Rather than advocating teaching and educating the less knowledgeable players the rules and strategies for survival.
So getting some sort of a consensus of what Casual means, will tremendously help any future discussions on whether PFS is capable of accommodating the casual player or not.
Ahh I gotcha. Carry on then. If I think of anything constructive to add I'll be back ;)
|
|
At most, I play in or GM PFS games once or twice a month. I do not build optimized characters, nor do I have any desire to do so. I don't know all the rules because, quite frankly, there are just too many and more are being released all the time. I don't know everything about the campaign setting or PFS's seasonal metaplots because (again) there is a plethora of campaign material (with more being released all the time) and I just don't have time to play or GM every scenario of every season.
Am I a casual gamer?
I don't think so. I'd consider myself an experienced gamer.
I've played and GMed RPGs for 30+ years. I've amassed a huge collection of RPG gaming material. I subscribe to several of Paizo's product lines. I believe I have a good understanding of the Pathfinder rules and a good understanding of PFS organized play.
And I know exactly how my characters should be played, so I do not appreciate sitting at a table and feeling belittled because my character may not be built or equipped the way some other player believes it should be.
I like to believe I'm mature enough to realize there are many different types of players and when I decide to play in a public game at a public venue, I have little to no control over which types of those players I'll be joining. But I would never criticize another player's choices or build or play style.
I just want to have fun with friendly people; I don't need to "win." Regardless, whether I'd be considered a casual player or not, I believe players like me have a place in PFS organized play.
I have no idea if I was on topic or not... ;-)
After seeing A'rul in Race for the Runecarved Key 12+ tier, I'd say he's pretty optimized.
But aside the point... you are definitely one of the players I most look forward to playing with, GM'ing for, and hopefully someday, be GM'd by.
|
|
As someone who only plays/GMs PFS occasionally and does not build optimized characters, I still find PFS attractive. Even Season 4.
What could be off-putting to some people are players who do not believe "casual players" (whatever those may be) have a place in PFS and are not afraid to voice their opinions about another player's "poor choices" or "bad build" at the gaming table.
|
|
After seeing A'rul in Race for the Runecarved Key 12+ tier, I'd say he's pretty optimized.
But aside the point... you are definitely one of the players I most look forward to playing with, GM'ing for, and hopefully someday, be GM'd by.
Well, thanks! I'm flattered.
But perhaps I have no idea what "optimized" means. I certainly wouldn't consider A'rul optimized. His AC may be, but I wouldn't consider his choice of skills, feats or spells optimized. And since he tries to avoid combat at all costs, I've sometimes gotten grief for not playing him correctly; we won't even bring up that unfortunate color spray incident.
|
When I talk about casual gamers, I'm usually referring to those who just haven't played enough yet to know all the stuff that Andrew is complaining they don't know.
Yes, that could be beginners, but sometimes it's just people who can't play often enough to join a real campaign, so they look to organized play as a way to play the game occasionally, even though they can't dedicate any real time to it. Driving such people away from organized play would mean that they stop playing the game altogether, because the flexibility of organized play is often the only way that such players ever get a chance to play.
And yes, it is possible for newbies to hit mid-level in PFS (5-6 or even higher) without knowing about a lot of the standard advice that's always thrown around here on the forums. I remember as a newbie to Pathfinder (returning to RPGs after a 20ish year hiatus), I faced swarms in a PFS adventure at level 3, and I didn't know about splash weapons. And I learned about other precautions, like being ready for Deeper Darkness, Invisibility, DR, etc that are always talked about here the hard way - by not being prepared for them the first time I faced them.
|
So what is the definition of a casual player?
My definition of a casual player would be a person not willing or able to spend the time to find all the angles to get as much advantage from the system as possible. A person can be a frequent player and still be casual; infrequency is not synonymous with casual.
So a casual player would think about how their character(s) will level when they level - and the non-casual player knows what they are going to select for the next 3,6,12 levels of the character.
|
|
It feels like he is advocating dumbing the scenario challenges down to the lowest common denominator (as far as knowing/learning the rules, and character optimization). Rather than advocating teaching and educating the less knowledgeable players the rules and strategies for survival.
Do you find that season 3 scenario challenges were dumbed down to the lowest common denominator? Rather than arguing semantics over the term 'casual' (which just seems bound to lead to someplace unproductive and not particularly respectful to all involved), let's discuss the underlying question:
Did season 4 overreach in its effort to provide greater challenges to those vocal on the PFS boards about prior seasons' level of difficulty?
|
|
Well, if you, I, and Silbeg above, are considered casual, because we choose not to create super-optimized characters, then it is the other players who are being rude by looking down their noses at us because we did not do so.
That I will not, and cannot abide by.
Players like us are more than welcome in PFS, as I feel that you and Silbeg truly make a table most enjoyable for both the other players and the GM. I'd like to think that I do too.
And I'd say that my level of optimization is about on par with MisterSlanky's level of optimization. And if he considers himself casual, then in his mind, I am also casual (and so would you, and Silbeg be).
His experience with Season 4 has been drastically different than mine, and he feels that it is not friendly to casual players.
I can't invalidate his dislike of season 4 in general. Its been his experience.
But is it because of those players who denigrate lack of super-optimization? Is it because the GM's don't know how to gauge the difficulty of their table based on who's playing at it? Is it because the scenarios are truly too difficult and I've been lucky as both a GM and player (mind you with a sample size 3 to 4 times as large as Mister Slanky's to take experience from)? Is it because super-optimizers are dominating the table? Is it because he gets sat with players who don't care to play with a sense of urgency and strategy? Does he get sat with the children often? Is it because he's not doing due diligence to teach the others good strategy and then getting upset because sub-par strategy makes the scenario too difficult? Is it the overriding mindset of trying to bulldoze through everything that worked in earlier seasons and being unwilling to modify play to think through things? Is it being unwilling to use tactics (take 20) at your disposal because "rolling dice is more fun" and scenarios have some challenges where certain builds will need to take 20 to bypass the challenge?
Without a working definition of what casual is, it will be hard to realistically have the discussion about whether season 4 is truly incompatible with casual play or not, or whether it is just incompatible with MisterSlanky's play or play experiences.
|
Again, my experience has not paralleled folks who feel that season 4 particularly is too difficult for casual players.
So what is the definition of a casual player?
Everything is so dependent on the GM, that question isn't even relevant.
What's a solid player at one table will be a casual (weak) player at another.
Even the definition of casual is ambiguous. You can call someone casual based on several aspects:
- Character build (the most common)
- Do they use good tactics?
- Are they teamwork orientated?
- Do they have good rules knowledge?
- Does their PC have important consumables?
- Does the player take their turn quickly?
- + more
The bottom line: Is your PC able to contribute in some meaningful way?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But I would never criticize another player's choices or build or play style.
Even if they were a 7th-level wizard pregen throwing daggers in a 7-11?
If you're the real-life person I think you are, you were there for that TPK. I also recall you (again, if that's you) exchanging looks with the GM at some of the actions that player announced.
So, people say that they would "never" criticize someone's playstyle/choices or that PFS has room for "everyone", but I suspect that in reality everyone draws the line somewhere.
Perhaps the best thing for this discussion would be to try and determine where that line is. (Or should be?)
To be clear: I'm not saying that anyone (even DaggerWiz) is bad or unwanted or should leave. The "line" is not between those who should be allowed to play and those who shouldn't, it's between those who need educating and those who need less educating (we all need some educating).
As another example, I once played alongside a 1st-level rogue with single-digit STR and 16+ DEX, but who (we eventually found out) didn't know Weapon Finesse existed. (He was very happy to be told about it, though!)
I don't think anyone would argue that it's inappropriate to point out that your wand of magic missile is a better option than a thrown dagger, or that Weapon Finesse is a good idea for your 8 STR rogue. I don't think anyone would argue that scenarios should be designed in such a way as to let those choices be consistently successful.
------------------------------------------
So somewhere, there's a line where we cross from "we need to tell them about better choices they could make" into "scenarios should be consistently succeeded at by players making these choices".
The ultimate question is, where is that line?
|
|
So a casual player would think about how their character(s) will level when they level - and the non-casual player knows what they are going to select for the next 3,6,12 levels of the character.
So what's the type of player one step below casual? I rarely think ahead even one level. I build my characters reactively based upon their in-game experiences rather than proactively to take advantage of every angle.
Even so, I'm having fun with my PFS play. Even in Season 4. And with one (or two) exceptions, I don't think my style of play has been a hindrance to any table at which I've sat.
|
|
When I talk about casual gamers, I'm usually referring to those who just haven't played enough yet to know all the stuff that Andrew is complaining they don't know.
Yes, that could be beginners, but sometimes it's just people who can't play often enough to join a real campaign, so they look to organized play as a way to play the game occasionally, even though they can't dedicate any real time to it. Driving such people away from organized play would mean that they stop playing the game altogether, because the flexibility of organized play is often the only way that such players ever get a chance to play.
And yes, it is possible for newbies to hit mid-level in PFS (5-6 or even higher) without knowing about a lot of the standard advice that's always thrown around here on the forums. I remember as a newbie to Pathfinder (returning to RPGs after a 20ish year hiatus), I faced swarms in a PFS adventure at level 3, and I didn't know about splash weapons. And I learned about other precautions, like being ready for Deeper Darkness, Invisibility, DR, etc that are always talked about here the hard way - by not being prepared for them the first time I faced them.
And this is why I think we need a first steps two at 5-7 range. The game changes radically around those levels and new and casual players have a lot of problems doing those games well. Especially caster types.
|
|
When I talk about casual gamers, I'm usually referring to those who just haven't played enough yet to know all the stuff that Andrew is complaining they don't know.
Yes, that could be beginners, but sometimes it's just people who can't play often enough to join a real campaign, so they look to organized play as a way to play the game occasionally, even though they can't dedicate any real time to it. Driving such people away from organized play would mean that they stop playing the game altogether, because the flexibility of organized play is often the only way that such players ever get a chance to play.
And yes, it is possible for newbies to hit mid-level in PFS (5-6 or even higher) without knowing about a lot of the standard advice that's always thrown around here on the forums. I remember as a newbie to Pathfinder (returning to RPGs after a 20ish year hiatus), I faced swarms in a PFS adventure at level 3, and I didn't know about splash weapons. And I learned about other precautions, like being ready for Deeper Darkness, Invisibility, DR, etc that are always talked about here the hard way - by not being prepared for them the first time I faced them.
Very good points Fromper.
But these folks who don't know much about the game, because they are new, and don't have the time to learn outside of game time, can easily be educated on some of the most simply strategies and preparation techniques.
I certainly don’t advocate looking down my nose at them, or chasing them away, in any capacity. There are several like this who play in my area. I’d say my wife is fairly casual by your definition. But then she just started play after a 20 year hiatus, about 2 years ago. She is just starting to try out GM’ing. She still gets rules misinterpreted that folks who play the game take for granted, because we just “know” the rule. She interprets them like the English language would. Not like the DnD Gamer English would.
I think that what you describe has a place in this game (indeed organized play is really designed for those folks).
But if the player you describe is completely unwilling to allow other helpful (not rudely helpful or players who are denigrating towards this style) players to help them or educate them along slowly, then that isn’t fair to everyone else either.
We talk, on these boards, a lot about the social contract that this game is. That you agree not to be a jerk, and you agree to have fun, and you agree not to bully, etc. I would say that at least slowly learning the rudimentary rules and survival strategies and preparation strategies is part of that social contract.
|
|
But I would never criticize another player's choices or build or play style.Even if they were a 7th-level wizard pregen throwing daggers in a 7-11?
If you're the real-life person I think you are, you were there for that TPK. I also recall you (again, if that's you) exchanging looks with the GM at some of the actions that player announced.
Yes, I believe I am who you think I am. And while I may have exchanged glances with the GM during that session, I don't recall criticizing the player (nor do I recall any player doing so). There is a difference between trying to make helpful suggestions to a new player (which I think I recall all of us at that table doing) and rudely telling someone they're playing their character wrong (which has happened to me at least a couple of times at other tables).
I firmly believe in offering helpful suggestions to new players if they seem open to such suggestions; I strongly oppose hostile criticism of any player for any in-game actions.
And I still feel badly for being a party to the deaths of you and your brother's characters in that aforementioned game.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes, I believe I am who you think I am. And while I may have exchanged glances with the GM during that session, I don't recall criticizing the player (nor do I recall any player doing so). There is a difference between trying to make helpful suggestions to a new player (which I think I recall all of us at that table doing) and rudely telling someone they're playing their character wrong (which has happened to me at least a couple of times at other tables).
I firmly believe in offering helpful suggestions to new players if they seem open to such suggestions; I strongly oppose hostile criticism of any player for any in-game actions.
I agree with all of this. (I've also occasionally been told that what I was doing with my character was a bad idea; but never by someone who just finished playing a scenario alongside me!)
The point of this thread is not "should we educate them, or should we rudely criticize/chase them off?" It's more like "should we educate them, or should we design scenarios so that we won't need to?"And I still feel badly for being a party to the deaths of you and your brother's characters in that aforementioned game.
Well, don't feel too bad for me, as I had just cashed in on that 12+ Special with that character, so it probably evened out for me. I do feel bad for the other newbie who did pretty well overall but will probably never play PFS again. :/ But in either case, I don't think you could really say you contributed to the TPK.
|
|
But I would never criticize another player's choices or build or play style.Even if they were a 7th-level wizard pregen throwing daggers in a 7-11?
If you're the real-life person I think you are, you were there for that TPK. I also recall you (again, if that's you) exchanging looks with the GM at some of the actions that player announced.
Yes, I believe I am who you think I am. And while I may have exchanged glances with the GM during that session, I don't recall criticizing the player (nor do I recall any player doing so). There is a difference between trying to make helpful suggestions to a new player (which I think I recall all of us at that table doing) and rudely telling someone they're playing their character wrong (which has happened to me at least a couple of times at other tables).
I firmly believe in offering helpful suggestions to new players if they seem open to such suggestions; I strongly oppose hostile criticism of any player for any in-game actions.
And I still feel badly for being a party to the deaths of you and your brother's characters in that aforementioned game.
Everyone will make a mistake in tactics from time to time. I've done it more than once (as both a player and GM).
Some players consistently make bad choices, but have good, overly-optimized characters. So their characters overcome the player's lack of tactical acumen.
Some players make awesome choices with bad characters. And their tactical acumen overcomes the inadequacies of their characters.
Some players are new, and just don't know better, but are eager and willing to learn. Even if it is on just a "Fromper-defined" casual level.
Some players think they know it all (even when they don't) and will make bad build choices, bad tactical choices, and won't listen to anyone around them. Ultimately not only not contributing to the success of the team, but hindering the team.
I draw the line as to what's acceptable from a "casual" player at the last example.
|
|
When I talk about casual gamers, I'm usually referring to those who just haven't played enough yet to know all the stuff that Andrew is complaining they don't know.
Yes, that could be beginners, but sometimes it's just people who can't play often enough to join a real campaign, so they look to organized play as a way to play the game occasionally, even though they can't dedicate any real time to it. Driving such people away from organized play would mean that they stop playing the game altogether, because the flexibility of organized play is often the only way that such players ever get a chance to play.
And yes, it is possible for newbies to hit mid-level in PFS (5-6 or even higher) without knowing about a lot of the standard advice that's always thrown around here on the forums. I remember as a newbie to Pathfinder (returning to RPGs after a 20ish year hiatus), I faced swarms in a PFS adventure at level 3, and I didn't know about splash weapons. And I learned about other precautions, like being ready for Deeper Darkness, Invisibility, DR, etc that are always talked about here the hard way - by not being prepared for them the first time I faced them.
Very good points Fromper.
But these folks who don't know much about the game, because they are new, and don't have the time to learn outside of game time, can easily be educated on some of the most simply strategies and preparation techniques.
I certainly don’t advocate looking down my nose at them, or chasing them away, in any capacity. There are several like this who play in my area. I’d say my wife is fairly casual by your definition. But then she just started play after a 20 year hiatus, about 2 years ago. She is just starting to try out GM’ing. She still gets rules misinterpreted that folks who play the game take for granted, because we just “know” the rule. She interprets them like the English language would. Not like the DnD Gamer English would.
I think that what you describe has a place in this game (indeed organized play is really designed for those folks).
But if the player you describe is completely unwilling to allow other helpful (not rudely helpful or players who are denigrating towards this style) players to help them or educate them along slowly, then that isn’t fair to everyone else either.
We talk, on these boards, a lot about the social contract that this game is. That you agree not to be a jerk, and you agree to have fun, and you agree not to bully, etc. I would say that at least slowly learning the rudimentary rules and survival strategies and preparation strategies is part of that social contract.
But I think part of the complaint about season 4 being harder is what do you do if you've got 3 or 4 of these newer players at the same table, with nobody willing/able to teach them? In earlier seasons, they might have been able to muddle through, or at least run away if things got too rough. Since the end of season 3, they're going to get clobbered and all die. Or even if there is someone to make recommendations, it may be too late by the time they reach the middle of the adventure to implement the suggestions, since you can't buy an oil of daylight (for instance) when you're already in the middle of the dungeon. And yes, I have seen magical darkness at tier 1-2, so that wasn't hypothetical.
Season 4 is clearly and intentionally more difficult than earlier seasons, and I'm ok with that, though I suspect one or two of the scenarios probably took it a bit too far (possibly including the higher tier of the scenario that prompted this discussion). I'm mostly worried about the low level adventures being too hard for newbies. First Steps is great for level 1 characters, but there are plenty of tier 1-2 adventures (not just from season 4) that I wouldn't run for a group of newbies with level 1 PCs. There's a reason that whenever I GM at the last minute for walk in newbies at my local game store, I always pull out the First Steps stuff. Veteran's Vault or Severing Ties would kill them, and we probably wouldn't see those players again.
|
|
So somewhere, there's a line where we cross from "we need to tell them about better choices they could make" into "scenarios should be consistently succeeded at by players making these choices".The ultimate question is, where is that line?
It is a daunting question, but I think the answer lies somewhere back closer to season 3. The main issue with pre-S4 scenarios wasn't that everything was dumbed down to allow inexperienced players to always succeed, but that many public game tables were running them as 6-PC sessions. Season 4 pushed the difficulty a little too far in trying to scale up to a larger default party size and provide greater challenges.
|
|
The point of this thread is not "should we educate them, or should we rudely criticize/chase them off?" It's more like "should we educate them, or should we design scenarios so that we won't need to?"
I liked Season 4. If our local area is any indication, we gained many new players after Con of the North (at least, I believe we did) and I believe we ran Season 4 scenarios almost exclusively. I know I ran a Season 4 scenario three times and all three tables had a majority of first time players. Unless those new players were being less than honest with me afterwards, they all had a great time, even those whose tables failed their missions.
So I'd rather educate new players than dumb down future seasons/scenarios.|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
A simple rule of thumb that I like to use - anyone who refers to their character as a "build" is probably not a casual player. This usually indicates that they consider the rules/game mechanics/crunch to be important - perhaps the most important part of the game.
Not that there's anything wrong with that... :)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I do feel bad for the other newbie who did pretty well overall but will probably never play PFS again. :/ But in either case, I don't think you could really say you contributed to the TPK.
That other newbie was DaggerWiz's mother, so I'm not sure we need to worry about that.
And from my perspective, I contributed to that TPK because I should have had an emergency healing potion. Also, getting charged by a fiendish bison doesn't help.
And that leads me to a possible definition for a casual player: A casual player is one who, after a loss, never asks himself what he could do better next time.
|
|
with nobody willing/able to teach them?Where's the GM?
There's no minimum requirement for GMs.
Besides, when was the last time you saw a GM ask before the session started, "Does anyone here have splash weapons?" to make sure they were prepared for swarms before it was too late?
Like I said, my big concern isn't season 4 being difficult. It's obviously tougher, but for the most part, it's not too far over the top. I'm mostly worried about low level tables having to face things that they're just not ready for.
|
|
with nobody willing/able to teach them?Where's the GM?There's no minimum requirement for GMs.
Besides, when was the last time you saw a GM ask before the session started, "Does anyone here have splash weapons?" to make sure they were prepared for swarms before it was too late?
Like I said, my big concern isn't season 4 being difficult. It's obviously tougher, but for the most part, it's not too far over the top. I'm mostly worried about low level tables having to face things that they're just not ready for.
No, but GM’s who run every table on “hard mode” regardless who they have at the table, really are doing a disservice to the players.
There is no reason to pull out all the stops as a GM, even in a 7-11, when you are at the last slot of a Con and you have 2 or 3 brand new players with pregens at your table (so the table can happen.)
There is usually enough wiggle room in scenarios for a GM to be helpful to the players and not always run “hard mode”. If you know most of your players have very little experience, are brand new, or generally otherwise very casual players, why would you run ‘hard mode’ for them?
|
|
I'm mostly worried about low level tables having to face things that they're just not ready for.
Perhaps the best solution to this problem lies with the event/game day/convention coordinator. If a good introductory scenario is made available with a patient and willing-to-teach GM and all of the new or inexperienced players could be mustered to such a table, the education process could begin there. Those are actually the types of tables I love to GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the term "casual player". I prefer to categorize players as "hardcore" and "not hardcore".
What's my definition of a hardcore PFS player? Anyone who has ever complain-o-bragged more than once about how easy PFS scenarios are is a hardcore player in my book.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ok, I know what scenario Jiggy and RainyDayNinja are talking about.
Why don't I remember that The Earl of Graypark was part of it, or that there was a mom & son involved at that table?
Am I misremembering?
Did Jaio Long die a 2nd time that I'm not aware of?
He was playing the Merisiel pregen.
Though the familial relationship of the two newbies is news to me.