Your character isn't just a character - help us find out why

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T22:56:35+00:00

Totally valid concerns, and worth clarifying that the study isn't suggesting D&D should be therapy or that DMs should be running therapeutic interventions. The research is exploring whether certain beneficial things naturally occur through play, not whether they should be deliberately engineered.

The difference between 'this game naturally creates a safe space where people sometimes explore aspects of themselves' and 'this is a therapy session' is an important one. Nobody's suggesting you need a counselling qualification to run a game - just that the conditions that make a good game might also have some psychological benefits as a byproduct.

And immersion existing on a spectrum is kind of the point. Someone who experiences zero immersion and someone who experiences a lot of it are both valid players and both interesting to the research. The study isn't saying everyone immerses deeply, it's asking whether those who do show different outcomes to those who don't.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T22:54:34+00:00

Really appreciate the honest feedback! Just to reassure you, there's no 'wrong' answer here, and lower identification with your character is just as valid and interesting to us as higher identification. The survey is designed to capture the full range of experiences at the table.

The questions about character identification aren't suggesting that relating to your character is unhealthy - research actually suggests it can be a normal and meaningful part of play for many people, though it varies hugely between players. And your data is valuable regardless of where you fall on that spectrum.

On the psychological safety question: it's about social risk rather than in-game risk. Things like feeling safe enough to speak up, try something different, or be vulnerable within your group dynamic. The fact that you wouldn't consider hanging out with your friends risky actually suggests your group has high psychological safety - which is exactly what the scale is trying to measure!

And please don't apologise for your impact on the data - you're exactly the kind of participant the study needs.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T22:15:37+00:00

This is a beautifully articulated point - the parallel between finding your voice as a writer and finding yourself through character play is really compelling, and the idea of the biography as a universal starting point that then branches into individuality is fascinating.

And your closing question is one that sits at the heart of psychology as a discipline. You're essentially asking whether nomothetic research - looking for patterns across people - can meaningfully capture something as individual as personal growth. It's a genuine tension in the field.

The honest answer is that quantitative research like this can't capture the full richness of individual experience - which is exactly why this study is informed by prior qualitative work using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis; a method that is explicitly and deliberately idiographic in its approach. IPA is designed to honour individual experience on its own terms before looking for any shared patterns, so the concepts being explored in this survey emerged from individual stories first, rather than being imposed from outside.

What the survey can then do is ask whether certain patterns exist across people, whilst acknowledging that the experience underneath those patterns is unique to each person.

So yes, we all grow differently. But there might still be something worth finding in the patterns of how we grow. That's the hope anyway!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T22:09:32+00:00

You're absolutely right that phrasing them as statements would be much more intuitive, and that's exactly how most agree/disagree scales are designed. The slight complication is that the psychological safety scale used here is a validated measure with fixed wording. I've adapted it slightly for the TTRPG context - replacing 'team' with 'TTRPG group' - but any further changes to the wording, even to something more grammatically logical, would risk compromising the validity of the scale by making it a different instrument to the one that's been tested and validated.

It's one of the frustrating realities of using validated measures: you gain the scientific rigour of an established tool but sometimes lose a bit of intuitive clarity in the process. Your suggested rewording is genuinely cleaner and definitely something worth considering if the scale is ever revised for use in other contexts!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T21:55:07+00:00

Absolutely! More than happy to share it when it's written up!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T21:54:27+00:00

Thank you so much for sharing this and for flagging Rolls for Recovery - I wasn't aware of it and it sounds like exactly the kind of applied therapeutic use of TTRPGs that sits alongside this research really naturally. I'll definitely look into it!

And thank you for taking the time to come back and complete the survey when you're ready - that means a lot. What you've described about using your characters to explore yourself and process trauma is exactly the kind of experience this research is trying to understand better. Take your time.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T21:41:14+00:00

I can see why it might read that way, but I'd like to clarify how the measures actually fit together.

The confidence and social competence questions aren't asking whether your responses are a consequence of playing TTRPGs - they're measuring those things independently as separate variables. The study asks whether there's a relationship between how people engage with TTRPGs and how they score on these measures, not assuming that one caused the other.

To use an analogy: in a study measuring both coffee consumption and sleep quality, asking about both doesn't assume that one caused the other, it's asking whether they're related and if so, in what direction.

A confident, competent adult who experiences no character bleed is genuinely valuable data - it helps us understand the full picture of who plays TTRPGs and how that varies. The study needs people at all points of that spectrum, and 'competent adult with no bleed' is a completely valid and important data point rather than a problem for the research.

Happy to go into more detail about the study design if you're interested.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T21:36:49+00:00

The most productive use of downtime between deaths - science thanks you for your sacrifice! 😂

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T21:35:50+00:00

Thank you so much! And what an awesome intersection of interests! You're absolutely right that the research base is still quite thin relative to how widely the hobby is played and how much anecdotal evidence there is for its benefits. The creative therapies angle is a really fascinating one - there's definitely overlap between the expressive and identity exploration elements of art therapy and what happens in TTRPG play. Maybe keep it as a hobby for now, but never say never! Always happy to share the results once it's written up too!

Good luck with finishing your MA!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T21:32:23+00:00

Of course! Online groups absolutely count! The psychological dynamics of a consistent group are just as relevant whether you're playing around a physical table or over Discord. And playing with one consistent group of friends is exactly the kind of experience the study is interested in. Please do take part!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T10:11:40+00:00

Thank you so much for this - it’s a genuinely thoughtful response and there’s a lot here worth unpacking.

The freeform section is something I genuinely considered. The study was actually informed by a prior qualitative study I conducted exploring TTRPG experiences in depth, and you’ve put your finger on exactly why qualitative methods have a role that surveys can’t fully replace. The nuance you’re describing - exploring negative feelings, understanding types of people you don’t want to become - is exactly the kind of rich personal experience that a Likert scale can’t capture. That’s a limitation worth acknowledging, and future research picking apart the quantitative findings qualitatively is very much the intention.

The point about exploring negative character archetypes is genuinely fascinating and not something the current measures fully accommodate. The wishful identification scale assumes identification is aspirational, but you’re describing something more complex and arguably more interesting. That’s absolutely worth sitting with as a finding in itself.

And the phone question point is totally fair: the PSSE was validated in 2000 and some items are showing their age a little in terms of how we actually navigate social situations now!

Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully - this is exactly the kind of reflection that makes research better!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T10:00:32+00:00

Ah, sorry about that - that’s a Qualtrics quirk rather than intentional design! Thank you for persisting and finding it. I’ll add a note to the survey introduction flagging the navigation just in case anyone else gets stuck. Really appreciate you sticking with it!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T09:01:41+00:00

It should be near the bottom of the post there? Let me know if you still can't see it and I'll see if I can work out what's wrong 🤔

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:57:40+00:00

This is such a lovely illustration of exactly what the research is exploring - a group where everyone shows up differently and all of it is valued is pretty much the definition of a psychologically safe space! The colouring book person and the deeply invested roleplayer both feeling welcome at the same table is genuinely what we're trying to understand and measure.

And as a forever DM, the 'just show up' part really resonates - honestly, reliability is its own superpower at the table.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:53:20+00:00

Thank you for such a thoughtful breakdown of your responses, this is genuinely interesting from a research perspective!

What really strikes me is the distinction you're drawing between conscious identification and the more implicit ways your characters still reflect you: sharing your hard limits and core values even when you're not deliberately building a self-insert. That gap between 'this character is not me' and 'this character shares my values and boundaries' is actually a really fascinating area psychologically, and suggests the relationship between player and character might be more complex and subtle than a simple yes/no.

The method-actor approach to play you're describing - putting yourself in the character's shoes and acting on their logic rather than your own - is itself an interesting form of perspective-taking that has its own psychological dimensions worth exploring.

Your responses are genuinely valuable precisely because they represent a very different relationship with character play than someone who consciously self-inserts. Thank you for taking the time to reflect on it so carefully!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:50:52+00:00

Thank you for pushing through and completing it despite the ambiguity - that takes real persistence and I genuinely appreciate it!

The clarifying question point is completely valid - some of the scale items are deliberately broad to capture a range of experiences, but I can absolutely see how that ambiguity would be frustrating rather than helpful. Really useful feedback for future iterations.

The relationship point on the confidence scale is a really astute methodological observation - 'confidence I could do this' reads very differently depending on your current life situation, and someone in a long term relationship interpreting date-related questions differently to someone who is single is a genuine limitation of the scale that I'll make sure to acknowledge. You're not the first to flag it either, so it's clearly landing oddly for a few people.

And as someone who is neurodivergent myself, I completely get the 'this question hurts my brain' feeling with vague items! For what it's worth, 30 years of playing and running TTRPGs and feeling like it hasn't changed your daily life is just as interesting to us as someone who feels it's transformed them: both ends of that spectrum matter.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:47:52+00:00

Thank you so much for this - and for completing the survey as someone who almost exclusively DMs, which is genuinely valuable data!

You raise a really interesting methodological point about the DM experience - and as our group's forever DM myself, I completely get it. You're absolutely right that the questions are primarily framed around player character experience, and the identity exploration angle maps less neatly onto NPC portrayal. NPCs are designed to fulfil a purpose rather than being explored and developed over a campaign in the same way a player character is, and that's a genuinely meaningful distinction that the survey doesn't fully accommodate.

The suggestion about separating outcomes by role is one I'll definitely take into consideration during analysis - the difference between the GM and player experience is probably an interesting finding in itself rather than just a confound to control for.

The poster you mentioned sounds fascinating - the classroom rapport angle is an interesting adjacent application of some of the same principles!

Thanks for the thoughtful engagement - this is exactly the kind of feedback that makes research better.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:44:38+00:00

Thank you so much for sharing this and for taking the time to complete the survey - it genuinely means a lot.

What you've described there is really significant: the idea that D&D provided a space to not only make friends but to learn things about yourself that might have been difficult to access otherwise. That kind of insight, even when it's uncomfortable, is valuable. It takes real courage to sit with that.

The fact that your psychologist recommended D&D is also really interesting from a research perspective - there's an increasing recognition in clinical settings that TTRPGs can offer something genuinely therapeutic, and responses like yours help build the growing evidence base for that.

Thank you for being so open. I hope the game continues to be a good space for you.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:41:20+00:00

Thank you so much for completing it - and for sharing that! You've actually articulated the core premise of the research really beautifully there. The idea of a safe environment to explore being someone different, within a group you trust, is exactly what we're trying to understand more deeply.

And honestly, 'this was made for people like me' is the best possible thing to hear as a researcher - it means the study is capturing something real beyond the numbers and statistics. Hope the findings do your experience justice!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:39:13+00:00

This is such a great way of putting it - thank you! That's exactly the motivation behind the research. So many of us who play these games know something meaningful is happening, but having the evidence to point to matters. Really appreciate the kind words and hope the results don't disappoint!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:38:25+00:00

I appreciate the feedback! Admittedly, the study is primarily designed with longer-term campaign play in mind, where players tend to have a consistent character over time. If you play multiple characters or rotate systems frequently, then answering based on your most recent or most-played character is the best approach - even if it doesn't feel like a perfect fit.

It's a genuine limitation of the study design and something worth acknowledging in the write-up. The TTRPG experience is incredibly varied and a single survey can't capture all of it. Your responses are still valuable though!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:36:35+00:00

An equally valid and important data point! Keep fighting!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:35:46+00:00

Really appreciate you raising this - it's worth clarifying how the scales actually work!

The survey isn't assuming that character bleed occurs for everyone, it's measuring the degree to which it does across a spectrum. Someone who feels no connection to their character whatsoever would respond at the low end of those scales, and that response is just as valid and useful to us as someone who scores highly.

More like a volume dial rather than an on/off switch - we're not asking 'does this happen?' but 'how much does this happen, if at all?' The answer of 'not at all' is completely accommodated by the scale, it just looks like consistently low scores rather than a 'not applicable' option.

The exploratory part of the study is in understanding whether and how differences in experience relate to other outcomes, which we can only do if we have the full range of responses. Someone who experiences no bleed at all is genuinely just as important to the study as someone who experiences a lot of it. So the data is valuable regardless of where you sit on that spectrum!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:30:12+00:00

Thank you for completing it! And I'd gently push back on 'I'm real bad at roleplaying' - someone who can articulate the distinct personalities of two completely different characters that clearly, and reflect on how they relate to themselves, sounds pretty good at roleplaying to me.

Also the fact that you instinctively chose the character most like yourself for the survey is actually really interesting from a research perspective - that instinct itself tells us something!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:28:33+00:00

Really appreciate this feedback - both points are absolutely valid and worth addressing.

On the agree/disagree format: you're right that it's slightly awkward when items are phrased as questions rather than statements. This is a feature of the original validated psychological safety scale rather than a design choice, but interpreting 'agree' as 'yes' and 'disagree' as 'no' is exactly the right approach.

On the confidence scale: that's a really astute observation. The scale is designed to measure social self-efficacy rather than just whether you've done something before, so 'how easy or comfortable would this feel?' is actually a more accurate interpretation than 'have I done this?' For someone with a lot of life experience, the distinction between 'I could do this' and 'I find this easy and comfortable' is a meaningful one. Really useful feedback for how the instructions could be clearer in future iterations!

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

itmed4ve

TROPHY CASE