I surveyed 200+ TTRPG players on what they wanted from a game. Here's what it taught me about campaign longevity.

[AstroArtificer]

@AstroArtificer can you give us a legend for the chart? Thanks.

Yup! Appreciate the patience. Let me know if it is still confusing

 

[AstroArtificer]

I think you need not just a legend on that chart, but a full explanation of your classifications. You seem to have... 26 different classifications, which may mean you are splitting hairs in ways that can skew your interpretation.

I also think 200 people is probably too small a sample size to draw conclusions from about gamers in general, especially if they were self-selected to participate.

My experience has been that long-term-investment in a game has far more to do with people just having complicated lives with lots of demands on their time, or people just being flakes.

Fair, I have included a legend to make it easier to read. I have also linked a page that explains the framework and the individual types inside the original post. There are 16 main archetypes, with emotional investment (casual/immersion) acting as a modifier. It is a bit busy, maybe I can include a table as well at some point?

Sure, surveying 200 people isn't the most extensive survey, but data like this isn't quite common in the first place. It's interesting because this is how people are responding to a survey that asks about table compatibility. The self-selection is the most interesting part. Who cares enough to even take the survey? I'm sure the results will normalize over time, and I'll make another update when I get there.

I totally agree with your point there, but I hear more about the mechanics of how people leave games (work stuff, life changes, family, etc.), but I am curious why? Why do some people act so flaky? Why do they choose to join a game when they obviously won't stay for the long term? What makes a group want to stay together?

 

[AstroArtificer]

This. Especially when considering the number of variables. ~200 people surveyed with over 20 categories of people? Seems like it's practically a guarantee that some groups must be underrepresented. I will admit it's been awhile since someone made me do the math.

Also, another problem with the graph: what the heck is the X axis? No label? No numbers? Are the lowest categories sitting at 0 or 1? Is the max 100% or 10 people? Is it linear or logarithmic?

I've explained this in a previous comment, so I'll leave it at that. Sorry to make you do math!

I've included an updated x-axis. It's completely linear, and it corresponds to the number of survey takers in that archetype. Some categories don't exist because there are 0 of them. Percentages may be hard to look at.

 

[SableWyvern]

I suspect that for most people who have never actually trained in improvisation, the term 'Yes, And' has become merely a shorthand for what it means to improvise, even though (as you say), it's really only one specific use-case in the improvisor's toolbox. The same way people who aren't full roleplaying gamers will use the term 'D&D' as a synonym for 'RPG', even though it's not. So I think we usually should cut those folks a little slack more often than not, when they don't use the terminology as precisely as it is meant to be used.

They're at least trying! That's more than we can say about a lot of people!

It's not so much that they've mixed up the terminology -- it's that I don't know if it's mixed up, or to what degree, because the information we've been provided is too vague to draw conclusions.

The survey may have been clear about this, and thus the results are meaningful, but we'd need to understand this to draw conclusions from the answers. On the other hand, if the survey itself was unclear, this needs to be considered when interpreting the answers.

Edit: I see the definition has been removed from the OP, but looks like it's covered in the linked attachment. I can't read it at the moment, but I presume it provides the context I'm looking for.

 

[LordEntrails]

Sure, surveying 200 people isn't the most extensive survey, but data like this isn't quite common in the first place. It's interesting because this is how people are responding to a survey that asks about table compatibility. The self-selection is the most interesting part. Who cares enough to even take the survey?

On this, how do these survey response rate match the general population? Is there any data that shows RPG/gamers populations by personality category? Maybe these percentages of respondents is significant, maybe not

 

[Umbran]

I totally agree with your point there, but I hear more about the mechanics of how people leave games (work stuff, life changes, family, etc.), but I am curious why? Why do some people act so flaky? Why do they choose to join a game when they obviously won't stay for the long term?

So, the thing to note there is that the game isn't the relevant bit. Some folks are flakes whatever they are doing. Flakey about going to game. Flakey about meeting you for a dinner reservation, or a movie.

I am saying that it is about general personality traits, not about how they play RPGs.

What makes a group want to stay together?

What makes a bunch of people regularly get together to watch football? Or play poker? Or go dancing? Or go to museums? RPGs are by no means the only thing people might do regularly, but fail.

 

[Golden Bee]

RPGs are different than that because they require specific people to show up repeatedly. Nobody's going to be mad if Isaac and Sarah miss a museum trip or don't make it to the club. But if they miss a gaming session fa might be down your main fighter and cleric.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

You're surfacing a great point here. I don't know if there is a perfect game system that works for everybody. But I believe that you can shape an RPG to be the right game for a group of people.

That is essentially how it's been done since the hobby began. And that has worked out for a lot of people. Heck, I might even suggest it worked for most people. They would not be playing anything if they weren't able to make it work. But it isn't always easy, or pleasant.

Yeah, I 100% agree with this point. The reason I built this quiz is that the friends you often play with will be a mixed bag of players who all want different things. This is worsened by the fact that people self-describe their preferences differently from their actual preferences at a table. For example, my GF thought she was a Storyteller, but she turned out to be a Writer when she took the quiz. This became clear when she told me that her character's story was more important than the emergent story from the table.

"Storyteller" and "Writer" sound very similar without adding context, and providing defintions within that context. Now I wonder. Does a Writer want to play with other Writers because their playstyles match? Or do they want to play with other types who aren't going to demand the same spotlight to highlight their character stories, too?

Usually, because we are friends of circumstance. We just find people out in the wild. Planning a game around that is nigh impossible, unless you can understand deeply how those players interact with each other and the campaign itself.

Sure. And those circumstantial arrangements might only last as long until you can replace them. Or the campaign ends. Or people stop showing up. Sometimes we just need to settle and make do with what we have, otherwise we have no game, no group, and no reason to complain about it.

The worst part is that each of those friends is willing to be committed and available, granted that they are getting what they want out of the game. When that starts to diverge, people grow disinterested and disengage.

That's just the way it is. The best you can hope for is to find people whose wants either coincide with the wants of others at your table, or at the very least, not get in their way. It's hard to please everyone.

But that goes back to my main point. We have games telling us that they can appeal to every type of gamer. All you have to do is adjust a few things or add some different options, and done. Except your group isn't just one gamer or one preference. They all come to this game being told it can be the right game for them. Now it's on you, the GM, to make that happen.

Sure, it can be done. We do it all the time, or at least we try. But it also used to be much easier when everyone had a closer idea of what the games were actually about. Yeah, it sounds great when a system says you can play anything. But that kind of versatility also means that the group you sit down with may have a lot of different (and viable) ideas about what they're playing.

You're right, a perfect game is about making something for everybody. It's about finding the select few you want to please, and shaping the game to be perfect for them.

Or stop looking for perfect altogether. Nothing is perfect. But there can always be better. You just have to know what it is you want, and find the right people who can give it to you. Most games can provide what you're looking for if you happen to be in the area. But if they're attracting too many people who might be looking for something else that is antithetical or opposite of what you're looking for...

I believe the industry figured out that people sitting at a table and playing their games doesn't make them money. Selling the game made them money. Once the game is sold, however, the customers stop being customers and became independent. The game could be played entirely from their imagination, making their own adventures and stories, etc.

So what does a company do to keep making make more money? More supplements. More subscriptions. More editions/revisions. More "lifestyle" products. But most importantly, more customers. Appeal to everyone possible so no customer is left behind. Then leave it for them to sort themselves out.

What happens at the table with their game is of no concern to them unless it can make them more money. That is their holy grail...

And I have rambled on enough for today. Time for me to do something productive. Cheers!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I believe the industry figured out that people sitting at a table and playing their games doesn't make them money. Selling the game made them money. Once the game is sold, however, the customers stop being customers and became independent. The game could be played entirely from their imagination, making their own adventures and stories, etc.

So what does a company do to keep making make more money? More supplements. More subscriptions. More editions/revisions. More "lifestyle" products. But most importantly, more customers. Appeal to everyone possible so no customer is left behind. Then leave it for them to sort themselves out.

What happens at the table with their game is of no concern to them unless it can make them more money. That is their holy grail...

And I have rambled on enough for today. Time for me to do something productive. Cheers!

While I don't exactly disagree with this, I have to note that being too casual here is industry poison, in the sense that if you teach people that they can't get a game together with your system, they most likely (not counting people like me who will buy a game product that isn't too expensive just out of abstract interest) stop buying add-ons and new editions. That's the hideous advantage D&D has always had; you can probably put together a D&D game almost no matter what barring very hard edged constraints on when and where you can play.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

While I don't exactly disagree with this, I have to note that being too casual here is industry poison, in the sense that if you teach people that they can't get a game together with your system, they most likely (not counting people like me who will buy a game product that isn't too expensive just out of abstract interest) stop buying add-ons and new editions. That's the hideous advantage D&D has always had; you can probably put together a D&D game almost no matter what barring very hard edged constraints on when and where you can play.

Playing online has made this particular point of contention almost irrelevant now. Covid proved that it was a viable way to play the game without ever leaving the house, or confining yourself to just the people in your immediate area/town/city. It may not be the preferred way for everyone, but it has its advantages. And of course, it became another way for publishers to sell you those books all over again. And again, if you switched to a different software program or service. $$$

But there's something else being missed here. The "industry" (and I'm referring largely to the mass-marketers and big corps) doesn't know how to innovate. Nor does it want to. It just rebrands, repackages, and reinvents what has already worked before. Sure it's good business sense, but it does nothing for anyone who isn't willing to settle anymore.

The game was intended for long-term, long-commitment, and long-running play. Yeah, it can be played for shorter runs and one-shots. But something is missed when the experience is expressly shortened, or not allowed to reach its full (and promised) potential. If the core game has everything you need to go from level 1 to level 20, the expectation is that the full game experience is supposed to go to level 20. If I only ever play to level 10, am I only playing half the game? And why am I paying for game content and rules that I never get to use because I can't take a full year or longer to play the same bi-weekly game to get there?

But this is what we're used to because this is what it was, and how someone designed it 50+ years ago, and anything else doesn't have the right to use the name which has more importance than the game or the system or the experience anymore. And anyone else trying to get a piece of that market knows that the closer they hew to the bone, the more meat they'll get.

I would absolutely LOVE an RPG that:

1. Invites more casual players and non-gamers by allowing more time to play at the table, and not have to do a bunch of homework to learn the rules, make the best choices, and find the right people to play with, etc.
2. Is not afraid to make definitive rules so that the person responsible for making the game happen is allowed to become less of a Master of the Game, and more of a Steward for the Players.
3. Provides a system that engages the whole table and keeps them invested in what others might do; not wait 20 minutes for their turn to contribute, and then roll a 2 during their big moment.
4. Has you spend less time at the table playing system administrator and accountant to see if your imaginary elf jumped over the imaginary log during a thunderstorm while the cleric casts Bless... did you take the Log Jumper feat?...
5. Sold me only what you needed to play up to the point they could reasonably expect you to play. (And if you make it that far, then here's the expansion game that lets you continue going!)
6. ...and then sold me the tools and accessories to make it easy for me facilitate the experiences that the game was supposed to do.
7. ...and offer different experiences to keep using the same system rather than rehashing the same things over and over and over...

The funny thing is that there might be a lot of people like me who would want the same thing that I do. But they're not the people who would be hanging around on RPG forums, or taking surveys about people who are in the hobby, or telling companies what they want because the games they see don't look appealing to them. There's no real solution to this unless someone has the inclination to come up with something that nobody else has seen yet. But I don't believe people are receptive to anything that doesn't look like their duck, walk like their duck, and quack like their duck. (Unless it's Dragonbane. Or maybe a duck.)