Sly Flourish's 2016 D&D Dungeon Master Survey Results

Mike Shea, otherwise known as Sly Flourish, held a survey over recent months to look at how Dungeons & Dragons DMs prepare and run their games. The results have now been released, and they make for some interesting reading. For example, most people play weekly for about four hours (as expected) with about an hour to two-hours preparation time. Over half play at home, about 10% in public, and about 20% play online. Over half use their own settings, 38% play in the Realms, and 5% in other D&D settings. Two thirds run their own adventures, with one third running published adventures. Check out Mike's full report (it's long!) for all the data!

Some key points:

• 6,600 respondents.
• Most people play weekly for about four hours (as expected) with about an hour to two-hours preparation time.
• Over half play at home, about 10% in public, and about 20% play online.
• Over half use their own settings, 38% play in the Realms, and 5% in other D&D settings.
• Two thirds run their own adventures, with one third running published adventures.
• The Kobold Fight Club online encounter builder is the most used tool. Ahead of dice, apparently!

If you want to analysis the data yourself, you can do so here (CSV file).

SaveSave​

 

[Morrus]

I wonder if a luminary in the business would get the gumption to kickstart such a survey. Share results with the backers at different detail levels. I wonder if anyone would pay for such a thing.

I actually tried to do that very thing. Thing is, market research of that scale is *expensive* and we didn't manage to convince enough companies of the value of the data. A few showed interest, but a lot said they weren't interested.

The customer base for such data is tiny. It's not gamers, it's publishers.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[darjr]

I am interested. I'd drop a few copper in the tin for it. And I bet I'm not alone. I'm no publisher. But I get you. It be a non-trivial effort just to see if it's viable.

 

[Greg Benage]

Yup. Nobody has ever attempted anything on that scale since. You can't do it secretly, by definition.

You can (and almost always do) choose not to publish the results...

You're right that at least one of 65,000 respondents might say, "Hey, I was surveyed!" online and thus "leak" the survey's existence. Is that what you're going on, or did someone at Wizards tell you they haven't done anything on that scale?

 

[Morrus]

You can (and almost always do) choose not to publish the results...

You're right that at least one of 65,000 respondents might say, "Hey, I was surveyed!" online and thus "leak" the survey's existence. Is that what you're going on, or did someone at Wizards tell you they haven't done anything on that scale?

Nobody has ever done anything on that scale since the big one 16 yrs ago. We can invent vast international secrecy conspiracies, but then we look silly. The closest would be the DDNext surveys, but they were a different beast.

SaveSave​

 

[Morrus]

Sly Flourish's 2016 D&D Dungeon Master Survey Results

I am interested. I'd drop a few copper in the tin for it. And I bet I'm not alone. I'm no publisher. But I get you. It be a non-trivial effort just to see if it's viable.

We made that non-trivial effort.

We had a good model, too. I have access to a heavy duty international market research company. It would have provided data on a scale which dwarfed that original WotC survey for a fraction of the cost to any given publisher. There just weren't enough publishers who showed interest. Paizo did. Others didn't. A smattering of mid-level publishers were interested. But the number of publishers who could usefully use that data isn't big enough for a Kickstarter.

I'm still considering it. Different models. We also considered a subscription to ongoing yearly data. Not much traction on that though.




Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[darjr]

Ugh! I would so love to read that. Just out of personal curiosity.

 

[Balfore]

POTA was poorly written and combersome to flip thru.
No page reference when dealing with something.
It always gave chapters, which then you had to spend several minutes looking for what you needed. (PHB does the same thing, page numbers really would help ).
Plainly state how something should be done, instead of long ambiguous references which create more time for prep when trying to figure out what was trying to be said.

My players could not believe how clunky and combersome the campaign was.

That said, the new Giants campaign looks amazing, with better references and an actual level tree of where you need to be and what level.
Very nice layout and looking forward to digging in.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Lanefan]

We made that non-trivial effort.

We had a good model, too. I have personal access to a heavy duty international market research company. It would have provided data on a scale which *dwarfed* that original WotC survey for a fraction of the cost to any given publisher. There just weren't enough publishers who showed interest. Paizo did. Others didn't. A smattering of mid-level publishers were interested. But the number of publishers who could usefully use that data isn't big enough.

I'm still considering it. Different models.

If you end up doing any such survey please don't repeat what WotC did in 1999. In theirs, they auto-excluded all responses from a particular identifyable group: anyone over a certain age (I think 35; Dancey's report has the actual number). They didn't want to know how those who had been playing for some time played the game, nor those who came into the hobby at a higher age; which I think* somewhat skewed the results toward a faster-paced shorter-campaign faster-advancement style of play...which was then adopted for 3e and beyond.

* - and if a full survey were to prove me wrong, so be it; though unfortunately we can't now go back to 1999 and do one.

Lanefan

 

[Morrus]

If you end up doing any such survey please don't repeat what WotC did in 1999. In theirs, they auto-excluded all responses from a particular identifyable group: anyone over a certain age (I think 35; Dancey's report has the actual number). They didn't want to know how those who had been playing for some time played the game, nor those who came into the hobby at a higher age; which I think* somewhat skewed the results toward a faster-paced shorter-campaign faster-advancement style of play...which was then adopted for 3e and beyond.

* - and if a full survey were to prove me wrong, so be it; though unfortunately we can't now go back to 1999 and do one.

It's here in full, if you want to check details (it was between the ages of 12 and 35; Americans only). A survey of 65,000 people using a general survey of the US population as a whole, not gamers specifically.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...ket-Research-Summary-(RPGs)-V1-0#.WFnP8kR0dBw

 

[Lanefan]

It's here in full, if you want to check details (it was between the ages of 12 and 35; Americans only). A survey of 65,000 people using a general survey of the US population as a whole, not gamers specifically.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...ket-Research-Summary-(RPGs)-V1-0#.WFnP8kR0dBw

I'd forgotten I'd double-failed - I was (and for that matter still am) an over-35 Canadian. I only remembered the over-35 part; which was annoying enough.

Why was it annoying? The survey was distributed, among other avenues, as an insert into one (or more?) issues of Dragon magazine. Myself and others in our crew dutifully filled it in and sent it back, only to find out much later that we'd completely wasted our time...we may not all have been 35 but none of us were American...

In fact, it would be interesting to see if different patterns emerge from different countries/regions. Do Canadians, for example, play longer sessions but less frequently than UK types? Are there any differences in play patterns between the upper-midwest USA where the game originated and other places where it has been adopted? Do non-English-speakers do things differently than English-speakers? And so on.

Lanefan