Polling

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm sure we've all heard certain assertions made about how Dnd 3.5 et al are played "typically."

While I can't realistically get a massive enough sample for an accurate read of all players of such, I thought it could at least be interesting to at least see what this community's cross sections might look like.to that end, I'd like to simply ask via some polls.

What level does your group typically start?

https://strawpoll.com/s81fyz21

What level does your group typically reach?

https://strawpoll.com/d2gfr3b7

Which of the d20 family of games do you prefer?

https://strawpoll.com/h1d7ky8h

How much house ruling does your group do?

https://strawpoll.com/k99y5ef4

What sources does your group use?

https://strawpoll.com/sz4h15hy

Source poll expanded

https://strawpoll.com/2212c6c1

Feel free to suggest additional polls to add.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Reserved for results

[Kelb_Panthera]

Reserved for Results post two

[Kelb_Panthera]

Reserved for Results post 3

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's probably good. Go ahead and post.

First request for aid; how long do you suppose I should wait to put up the results?

[Albions_Angel]

I would give it a week if the post remains active on the front page.

I would also recommend some additional polls. Maybe one about book access and 3.P vs 3.5 or Pathfinder.

And a further poll about optimisation levels. Frame it as "how effective is core monk in your games" or something like that?

Let me think, the access and 3.P question would be in 2 parts:

How does your group typically play the editions?

3.5 Only
3.5 with 3.0 content at DM discretion
3.5 with 3.0 content freely available
Pathfinder
Pathfinder with 3.5 content at DM discretion
3.P

What book group best fits your table when playing 3.5?
Core (PHBI/PHBII, DMGI/DMGII, MMI-V)
All books
No ToB
No Psionics
No Incarnum
No ToB/Psionics/Incarnum
Core/Completes/Races
Core/Completes

The other question could be phrased as:

If a player in your group were to play an effective monk in a 3.5 game, which of the following best fits their choice?
Core Monk
Variant Monk (UA, etc)
Specialist Monk (Trip, Disarm)
Unarmed Swordsage
Pathfinder Monk
Minor Houserule Monk (full BAB, standard action flurry, etc)
Homebrew Class

That way, we get the level people go to, the edition people play, the resources they would have access to, and the ability for the weakest core class to do well.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I would give it a week if the post remains active on the front page.

I would also recommend some additional polls. Maybe one about book access and 3.P vs 3.5 or Pathfinder.

And a further poll about optimisation levels. Frame it as "how effective is core monk in your games" or something like that?

I like where your head is at. Adding polls.

[Albions_Angel]

I edited my post with some suggestions for the polls. Hope you read this in time :P

[Kelb_Panthera]

Gonna have to think on that optimization poll. Phrasing the options will be tricky.

[Mike Miller]

I would also like an optimization poll. Maybe a role play vs roll play poll?

[Nifft]

I would also like an optimization poll. Maybe a role play vs roll play poll?

[ ] We role-play.

[ ] We roll-play.

[X] We do both at the same time and the two preceding options are blatant victims of the Stormwind Fallacy.

[Mike Miller]

I was thinking along the lines of the groups that primarily stay in character and don't play for combat vs those who stick to the tactical side of things and rarely bother talking in character. This could be hard to describe in poll form given the shades of Gray in between.

[RoboEmperor]

Your source book poll should've included 3.0 material. A LOT of offenders are 3.0. BoVD, Savage Species, Arms and Equipment Guide, etc. and a LOT of DMs ban 3.0 because of it. Some DMs also ban it because they believe stuff updated with the update booklet is still incomplete, broken, or unusable.

I know you have some 3.0 books already included like tome of battle but there should've been a blanket 3.0 option IMO.

[Khedrac]

I too want to see the results of this.

That said, on poll 3 you really need a line between "RAW is law; minimal" and "RAW is dodgy in some places; moderate but close to the intended game" as I think most people who regard RAW as dodgy in places would still call their amount of house rules "minimal" - to me "moderate" implies a lot more than simply fixing RAW.

Finally, on poll 4 I think the results are currently displayed are not being presented appropriately.

For example, Core gets 8.41% (18 votes) which looks really low, but I suspect it should actually be 100% (18/18 votes). With a "select all that apply" poll like this each result needs to show the % of the total that selected it as one of their options, not the % of the total options - that way you can see the relative popularities of the different components.

Also, you need to add PHB2 and DMG2 (at least) to the poll - they are currently only there as "Other" which I forgot to select not noticing it meant them.
Likewise Heroes of Battle, Heroes of Horror and Miniatures Handbook - I definitely should have selected "other" and it is not allowing me to change my vote - drat.

[Nifft]

I know you have some 3.0 books already included like tome of battle but there should've been a blanket 3.0 option IMO.

Tome of Battle is late 3.5e (August 2006), not 3.0e.

[RoboEmperor]

Tome of Battle is late 3.5e (August 2006), not 3.0e.

Really? huh. my bad then.

[SLOTHRPG95]

It might also help to have the levels below 17 also in ranges. I think it'd make it easier to choose. After all, few people I know can say that their campaigns usually end with everyone exactly at level 11, no more or less. Instead, I tend to hear, "yeah we generally end somewhere around levels 10-12." Also, I'm not sure a more fine-grained difference really gives useful feedback, esp. with a small sample size.

[Mike Miller]

Your source book poll should've included 3.0 material. A LOT of offenders are 3.0. BoVD, Savage Species, Arms and Equipment Guide, etc. and a LOT of DMs ban 3.0 because of it. Some DMs also ban it because they believe stuff updated with the update booklet is still incomplete, broken, or unusable.

I know you have some 3.0 books already included like tome of battle but there should've been a blanket 3.0 option IMO.

Maybe you were thinking Tome of Blood.

[Nifft]

It might also help to have the levels below 17 also in ranges. I think it'd make it easier to choose. After all, few people I know can say that their campaigns usually end with everyone exactly at level 11, no more or less. Instead, I tend to hear, "yeah we generally end somewhere around levels 10-12." Also, I'm not sure a more fine-grained difference really gives useful feedback, esp. with a small sample size.

Not sure that'll help.

I mean, what if the range options were 6-10 vs 11-15, which of those is your 10-12?

What if someone else's games run up to 11-14, not your 10-12? How is that person supposed to fit into your category?

I guess that the answer is:
- Have a separate poll for "game starts" and "game ends".
- Multiple level choices so you can click 10 + 11 + 12, and the other person can click 11 + 12 + 13 + 14.

[Twurps]

Seconding the poll on optimization level. I don't think the question on how RAW we play is very relevant unless it's compared with optimization level. In our group we don't need houserules on drown-healing, calling pazuzu, ice assassins, etc, because nobody would ever consider trying that stuff.
At lower optimization levels, RAW is a lot more workable.

[Aegis013]

Interested to see the results, added information from my typical group.

[WeaselGuy]

With regards to allowed source material, my group has a policy that if we're playing in a specific setting, we can't use books outside that setting that rely on setting specific material. For example, if we're playing in Forgotten Realms, then I can't use something like Eldeen Ranger, from Eberron, or things like Dragonmarks. But, usually, generic feats and PrC's are fine, no matter their source.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Not sure that'll help.

I mean, what if the range options were 6-10 vs 11-15, which of those is your 10-12?

What if someone else's games run up to 11-14, not your 10-12? How is that person supposed to fit into your category?

I guess that the answer is:
- Have a separate poll for "game starts" and "game ends".
- Multiple level choices so you can click 10 + 11 + 12, and the other person can click 11 + 12 + 13 + 14.

I mean, I'm trying to provide a better solution, not a perfect one. At that point, hypothetical person would have to make a judgement call. But also, given that there's more differentiation at lower levels, it wouldn't make sense to group a range of 4 at the top (as it is right now), and then lower on a range of 5. As to the suggestion of customizable ranges, as I think you're advocating for (if I interpret this correctly), there are pros and cons. On the one hand, yeah you accommodate a wider variety of more-accurate answers. Furthermore, you get to measure average spread of end-level within groups, which is interesting. On the other hand, this exacerbates the problem of messy data analysis, esp. with a small sample size.

Unrelated to the above, I do like the idea of a "game starts" portion, good suggestion.

[Boggartbae]

Finally, on poll 4 I think the results are currently displayed are not being presented appropriately.

For example, Core gets 8.41% (18 votes) which looks really low, but I suspect it should actually be 100% (18/18 votes). With a "select all that apply" poll like this each result needs to show the % of the total that selected it as one of their options, not the % of the total options - that way you can see the relative popularities of the different components.

Also, you need to add PHB2 and DMG2 (at least) to the poll - they are currently only there as "Other" which I forgot to select not noticing it meant them.
Likewise Heroes of Battle, Heroes of Horror and Miniatures Handbook - I definitely should have selected "other" and it is not allowing me to change my vote - drat.

Yeah hopefully the software will let you display those results accurately.

I'm also seconding adding 3.0 material to the allowed books poll, and also Pathfinder material, for those 3.P people like me.

Another poll I would like to see is whether people use real miniatures, dice as miniatures, or simply rely on the theatre of the mind.

Either way, thanks for putting this together. I've been wanting to put together some 3.P guides that include material ranging from Pathfinder to 3.0, but I wasn't sure if there would even be an audience. Now I know

[Nifft]

Another poll I would like to see is whether people use real miniatures, dice as miniatures, or simply rely on the theatre of the mind.

Yeah, good call.

Do include electronic aides -- including sites like roll20, virtual table-top products, a laptop with GIMP and a projector, or whatever.

[wookietek]

Instead of what level does your group reach, how about how many levels are gained in a typical adventure? The last 3 campaigns I was in started at level 1, 5, and 9. Level 1 is still going. Level 9 got to 17, and level 5 got to 8. In your poll what should be my answer?

[Kelb_Panthera]

It might also help to have the levels below 17 also in ranges. I think it'd make it easier to choose. After all, few people I know can say that their campaigns usually end with everyone exactly at level 11, no more or less. Instead, I tend to hear, "yeah we generally end somewhere around levels 10-12." Also, I'm not sure a more fine-grained difference really gives useful feedback, esp. with a small sample size.

I only clustered 17-20 because there's essentially no difference between them and, frankly, I don't expect it'll get much of the sample. This isn't a super sciencey data collection effort. Just trying to get a feel for things.

New polls added.

[Nifft]

I only clustered 17-20 because there's essentially no difference between them and, frankly, I don't expect it'll get much of the sample. This isn't a super sciencey data collection effort. Just trying to get a feel for things.

New polls added.

I do wish the level start was multiple choice.

[tiercel]

An optimization poll is hard to word because it’s not clear what “high” or “low” optimization even means (since it means such different things to different people). I suppose one could try to come up with a range of build options and ask “which of these build types would be generally acceptable/common in your group?” but even that exercise would be non trivial.

“Roleplay vs rollplay” would be even more of a third rail of D&D to ask about, since (“Stormwind Fallacy” notwithstanding) some groups actually do generally prefer defeating challenges through optimized application of game mechanics, some prefer defeating challenges through more roleplay/less RAW gameplay, and some may prefer a mixture of both (serially or in parallel). I don’t know if a good way exists of even asking this question much less STORMWINDSTORMWINDSTORMWIND - this kind of question is inherently even more subjective to even ask or answer, much less the shouting matches it can/will spawn....

[Faily]

Hmmm, I was only able to vote on 3 of the polls. Might be an IP-thing since I saw BWR voting on some of them earlier (same internet and same house, but different computers)?

Still, very interesting polls and interesting results so far! Looking over them, it surprised me with how often our groups have started at level 1 and crawled our way to the 17-20 range. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe a poll about magic items/WBL?

[Palanan]

Also, a poll question about group size would be interesting. And whether the group has a single DM, or a co-DM, or if DMs rotate.

[Albions_Angel]

Hey Kelb, with a lot of people suggesting changes to preexisting polls, how about, when you are done with collecting data, you drop me a message. I am an astrophysics PhD students and so know my way around graphing software. I can make some pretty plots and send them back :)

[Fizban]

This isn't a super sciencey data collection effort. Just trying to get a feel for things.

New polls added.
This is essentially why I checked out of eggynack's tiering thread back when- they wanted "data," but refused to define things well enough for that data to mean anything as far as I could tell, just subjective opinions on subjective questions.

Looking over the polls, it's easy to see the slant of the person who wrote them, with a straight skip from "RAW is sometimes dodgy" to "RAW is stupid w/ heavy houserules," with further implications that housrules are in opposition to the books. The very question of "what books do you allow?" assumes that the DM must or should allow everything from a book (with the implied "or nothing"), when that is actually one of the biggest problems with people breaking their own games. The problem with just trying to get a feel for things is that your perspective is inherently part of the feel of the answers.

I believe it would be possible to create a survey that could properly get all of that data, but it would be a survey, not a poll. There are hundreds of game elements, combos, rulings, play assumptions, etc, which must be written with full awareness of playstyles you are unaware of in order to allow those people to answer, to which every person will have a different combination of responses. However, it is still a finite amount of material to cover, so it's possible. But it is not this day.

Since I disagree with the methodology, I will abstain from voting (rather than vote for a while before walking out like last time).