I'm not sure that rules complexity is what turns off most causal players. AD&D 1e was a relatively complex game, but it has lots of causal players -- because while its rules were complex, you really did not have to know many of them to play. A lot of rules knowledge -- let alone system mastery -- wasn't needed to play.

New players could create a fighter or a thief in minutes and really did not need to know any rules to play the character. They could just tell the GM what the character was doing in regular terms and the GM or other players could easily translate "I try to hit the zombie with my sword" or "I try to sneak down the corridor without the guard in the side passage seeing me" into whatever die roll was needed. No knowledge of the rules was needed to play characters who did not use magic.

The player never needed to buy or study rules books to play well. All he had to do was describe what his/her character was doing and roll the dice when told to. Neither their lack of rules knowledge or lack of system mastery did not really hurt them -- nor did it hurt the rest of the party.

Games that more or less require people to buy rulebooks and study them to master the game system are unlikely to attract many casual gamers, in my experience. Worse, they often tend to make causal gamers unwelcome at a table that includes non-causal gamers as their lack of knowledge of the rules and they lack of interest in system mastery hurts the other players.

Isn't this where we segue into What's the Big Deal about Savage Worlds?
Since it seems to specifically meet the requirements for gamers with less time for gaming.
=

Quote from: Greentongue;383283Isn't this where we segue into What's the Big Deal about Savage Worlds?
Since it seems to specifically meet the requirements for gamers with less time for gaming.
=

Mongoose Traveller, d6 Star Wars, Basic D&D, and its retorclone Labyrinth Lord. There are plenty of RPG options available to not limit the choice to just a single system.

More games like WEG D6 Star Wars, epseically the very first edition and TSR Marvel Super Heroes in print would not be a bad thing.

Quote from: Greentongue;383283Isn't this where we segue into What's the Big Deal about Savage Worlds?
Since it seems to specifically meet the requirements for gamers with less time for gaming.

It's great for a certain kind of gaming, i.e. non-stop action, or as one of my players calls it, "mass murder: the game." I like SW but I find its focus kind of narrow.

just to opine a bit,

I really think any lapsed players are probably a result of a lack of like minded peers than anything. There are a ton of easy games out there , in print, etc, etc that if someone uses that as a all arround defence (as apposed to pointing out a particular game they dont like because its too crunchy) that they are just running their mouth and I don't think anything will magically convince them to come back.
 
(I mean honestly, just start listing free, short, and easy to get into games and you have a long old list that most people here would agree contains some real gold, increase the price a little and the list goes up an order of magnitude or something).

Its like those people who always want to do something , some magical hobby or inclination that they never bother sitting aside time for or pursuing in any fashion.

To some degree, if you want to do something, you have to pursue it. And yes life is long hard complicated and time consuming, but thats the same for everyone more or less. If you want to do something ,your probably already doing it.

(not to mention the whole, designing for people who aren't even playing business/gripe that is pretty justifiably brought up from time to time. They don't play? FUCK 'EM don't cater to ;em.)

Quote from: RandallS;383282I'm not sure that rules complexity is what turns off most causal players. AD&D 1e was a relatively complex game, but it has lots of causal players -- because while its rules were complex, you really did not have to know many of them to play. A lot of rules knowledge -- let alone system mastery -- wasn't needed to play.

Yes. What I call AD&D's "Wizard of Oz DMing". Most of the rules could be managed by the DM, with the players managing their characters' actions and rolling the dice when asked. That's a significant difference from a more number-crunching approach from the players' side of the screen.

There's that, and then there's the sheer volume (as opposed to complexity, which can be emergent) of the rules books. The AD&D PHB is slim in comparison to more modern games. And then again, nearly half of it is spell descriptions.

Something to keep in mind is that lots of people have produced simpler RPGs over the years - Ghostbusters, Prince Valiant, Marvel Superheroes, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.  However, while there have been some limited successes, the biggest hits have all been the complicated games with hundreds of pages in their core rulebooks - AD&D, Vampire, GURPS, etc.  Basic D&D is the biggest success, but it was more of a gateway to AD&D than a success on its own.  

I think there is potentially an unfilled niche out there for a simpler tabletop RPG that will bring in more casual players.  However, it's not as easy as just making a less complicated game - because lots of people have tried that.  

RPG companies all tend to release big, complicated games for the simple reason that those have tended to be more successful.  I think it's important to keep trying out simpler games, but it's hard to blame RPG companies for going with what tends to sell better.

I deliberately choose Swords & Wizardry (the 0e D&D 'retro-clone') for my 'Toronto group' almost 2 years ago precisely because the guys with whom I wanted to game were 'casual gamers' (old friends).  

(The fact that the rules were available for free was also an initial benefit, although eventually we all owned the core book, purchased via Lulu.  As GM, I purchased a number of other S&W books as well, e.g., the Monster book, and contributed a number of articles to the S&W/0e fanzine Knockspell)

I introduced a number of house rules in order to capture the 'ethos' I wanted for the game (easy to do, given the minimalist nature of S&W).  Once that was done, we were up and running.  This group would never have worked with a rules heavy game like 3e or 4e D&D, or Rolemaster (the latter being a game that I love).

This summer, upon my return to Toronto, I'll be running Call of Cthulhu with this same group.  CoC is also 'rules light' and 'intuitive' for players.  And a 'quick start' version (only 20 pages) is available for free online.

So yeah, going with simpler games has worked for me.

BRP has been my goto system for years... partly because of those issues of attracting and keeping players who aren't into 'system mastery'. Nobody likes some oppressive geek at the table lecturing them about the intricacies of the rules... they just want to play.
Frankly, I think that a lot of the attraction to those monolithic books of Byantine rules is a sort of one-upsmanship insecure dorks can toss at each other... quoting obscure intricacies of rules they've never even played (when they're not busy telling you the specs on the computer they just built).
We've got a guy like that in our group and he makes me cringe whenever he starts up about Hero or GURPS (though normally I like GURPS just fine). If I were the new guy at the table I'd be wondering what I'd gotten myself into.
I think the attitude of the 'pro-gamers' towards the 'casual gamers' plays a part in keeping folks away... similar to the disdain the 'pro players' in WOW have for the 'casual players'... a BIG part of why I don't play WOW anymore.

Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.

Quote from: Settembrini;383331Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.

Got proof?

Quote from: Settembrini;383331Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.

Hah, I agree.

Quote from: RandallS;383282Games that more or less require people to buy rulebooks and study them to master the game system are unlikely to attract many casual gamers, in my experience. Worse, they often tend to make causal gamers unwelcome at a table that includes non-causal gamers as their lack of knowledge of the rules and they lack of interest in system mastery hurts the other players.

One of my players, who was a long-time AD&D player, joined another group to play 3E a couple years ago. This guy is very casual, doesn't ever crack a book, and often asks for help tallying up modifiers. He games for the atmosphere and immersion.

Anyway, he only lasted a few months with the 3E guys. They were much more into rules mastery and tactical optimization. My buddy's disinterest in building powerful characters or learning the craft of grid-combat ran contrary to the group's play style and they kicked him out.

Quote from: Settembrini;383331Fun fact: Only jaded old fart RPGers and cannot-be-bothered-to-prepare-swine see ANYTHING attractive in so called rules-light systems.

If RPG publishers want to give up on the over 30 and married crowd and rely on the youth market and confirmed bachelors with no other hobbies, then that's their call.

The boardgame industry sure has found out there's a way bigger market for games that can be taught in 15 minutes and played in 3 hours than the games of yesteryear that took 8-12 hours to play. Very, very few adults over the age of about 25 can devote that kind of time to a game. But then today's boardgame market is aiming at couples, families, people who have full-time jobs and healthy social lives.