More sample size is always better and in particular n=1000 is probably good enough for getting the sample mean for all your questions but for subgroup analysis (eg, how do NSR vs OSR players feel about x, y, and z) it probably isn't enough.
This is a great idea - I suggest sharing to socials - twitter, reddit and facebook are deep pools to try and tap. If you can put some of those out there, happy to boost it.
These questions are poorly put together for only accepting single select answers. For example, the question "How do you usually play your sessions?"
I have one current group that only plays in person, one that only plays online with voice and no camera, and a previous group that no longer meets but which was most of my rpg time over the course of 2 years which played online with voice and camera.
So I have 3 different answers that are all valid, and the survey forces me to pick one. Which is going to artifically erase 2 of the 3 mediums I play by, as well as erasing the fact that some (or many?) players are quite flexible in how they play.
Similarly, there are questions about "your current main group" that are only relevant to people who operate with a single main group paradigm. If you're trying to measure the relative frequency of where people get RPG groups started, I have one group that met through friends offline, one that organized via friends online, and one that met through a casting call of strangers on discord. All are equally valid, but I can only input 1 of them, inherently skewing the data.
Continuing the survey, almost every question assumes a singular group with singular habits, making it impossible to give accurate answers. Love the idea of what you're doing here, but PLEASE make this multi-select in the future!
One-third of the system listings have been dedicated to D&D and its variants, and many other traditional systems are left entirely unlisted (MERP, Rolemaster, Runequest, etc.).
The question 'How would you rate yourself in these areas?' was odd. Why was 'combat' specifically mentioned here - what does it refer to? What is meant by 'responsiveness'?
'How would you rate your preference for roleplay difficulty?' - isn't this entirely dependent on one's own desire to play a specific role? If one wants to challenge oneself thoroughly, they might choose a character facing oppression, perhaps even of the opposite gender. Personally, I usually prefer to have at least some chance of understanding the character's motives and mindset.
'Games are better if I can play characters that are like me.' 😃 So, a home- and family-oriented enthusiast who wouldn't be persuaded to adventure even when threatened with violence? Well, no!
For future reference (coming surveys), it would be great if it was not centred so much on the so-called "American roleplay tradition" and also took into account the European approach, where the focus is more on roleplaying the characters and storytelling, rather than combat etc. For example, the player's "combat skills" are meaningless - they are playing a character and it is the character's understanding of tactics etc. that guides the player's decisions on what to do.
This is what sets RPGs in a different category from tabletop board games and strategy games.
Why stop at n=1000?
More sample size is always better and in particular n=1000 is probably good enough for getting the sample mean for all your questions but for subgroup analysis (eg, how do NSR vs OSR players feel about x, y, and z) it probably isn't enough.
That is fair enough!
The survey is nearly at 1,000 responses. I will just run it until the 1st of February.
This is a great idea - I suggest sharing to socials - twitter, reddit and facebook are deep pools to try and tap. If you can put some of those out there, happy to boost it.
I do not have a huge amount of reach on Twitter and Facebook. If people are willing to share there, that would be great.
We have nearly a thousand responses now.
These questions are poorly put together for only accepting single select answers. For example, the question "How do you usually play your sessions?"
I have one current group that only plays in person, one that only plays online with voice and no camera, and a previous group that no longer meets but which was most of my rpg time over the course of 2 years which played online with voice and camera.
So I have 3 different answers that are all valid, and the survey forces me to pick one. Which is going to artifically erase 2 of the 3 mediums I play by, as well as erasing the fact that some (or many?) players are quite flexible in how they play.
Similarly, there are questions about "your current main group" that are only relevant to people who operate with a single main group paradigm. If you're trying to measure the relative frequency of where people get RPG groups started, I have one group that met through friends offline, one that organized via friends online, and one that met through a casting call of strangers on discord. All are equally valid, but I can only input 1 of them, inherently skewing the data.
Continuing the survey, almost every question assumes a singular group with singular habits, making it impossible to give accurate answers. Love the idea of what you're doing here, but PLEASE make this multi-select in the future!
One-third of the system listings have been dedicated to D&D and its variants, and many other traditional systems are left entirely unlisted (MERP, Rolemaster, Runequest, etc.).
The question 'How would you rate yourself in these areas?' was odd. Why was 'combat' specifically mentioned here - what does it refer to? What is meant by 'responsiveness'?
'How would you rate your preference for roleplay difficulty?' - isn't this entirely dependent on one's own desire to play a specific role? If one wants to challenge oneself thoroughly, they might choose a character facing oppression, perhaps even of the opposite gender. Personally, I usually prefer to have at least some chance of understanding the character's motives and mindset.
'Games are better if I can play characters that are like me.' 😃 So, a home- and family-oriented enthusiast who wouldn't be persuaded to adventure even when threatened with violence? Well, no!
For future reference (coming surveys), it would be great if it was not centred so much on the so-called "American roleplay tradition" and also took into account the European approach, where the focus is more on roleplaying the characters and storytelling, rather than combat etc. For example, the player's "combat skills" are meaningless - they are playing a character and it is the character's understanding of tactics etc. that guides the player's decisions on what to do.
This is what sets RPGs in a different category from tabletop board games and strategy games.