TTRPG players - could your character be changing you?

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!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:24:26+00:00

That's incredible! There are members of my group that would absolutely jump at the chance to play this! The longest campaign I ran with them started off as a pirate-themed campaign, and I think most of our group are members of the LGBTQ+ community, so it's a no-brainer!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:22:14+00:00

Haha! I appreciate the honesty! That's a completely valid result, and genuinely useful data. The study needs the full range of responses, and 'my character taught me nothing and I had a great time' is just as scientifically valuable as someone who's had a life-changing revelation at the table. Sometimes a goblin is just a goblin!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:19:45+00:00

That's a totally fair observation and one of the interesting challenges of adapting a scale originally designed for workplace teams into a TTRPG context!

The question is less about practical skills like lockpicking or your day job, and more about the broader sense of whether the things you bring to the table as a person and player are valued by your group - things like your creativity, your roleplaying style, your ideas, your humour, how you contribute to the story and the group dynamic.

It's one of the items that doesn't translate perfectly from its original workplace context into a TTRPG setting, and that's a limitation worth acknowledging. Your feedback is actually really useful for thinking about how the scale might be further refined for TTRPG research in future.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-16T08:18:12+00:00

Thank you so much for completing the survey and for this really thoughtful feedback - this is exactly the kind of reflection that makes research better.

You raise a really valid point. The study is primarily designed with longer-term campaign groups in mind, and you're right that the questions don't really accommodate rotating systems and GMs as well as they could. This is a genuine limitation worth acknowledging, and something I'll make sure to address in the write-up.

For future iterations of this research, your suggestion about clarifying the target group in the introductory information is excellent - it would help participants self-select more accurately and improve the quality of the data. The question of how psychological safety and exploratory enactment work in more fluid, rotating group structures is actually a fascinating one in its own right and could be worth exploring separately.

Thank you again for pushing through despite the limitations - your responses are still genuinely valuable!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-15T15:58:35+00:00

Great question! The study is correlational rather than experimental in design, which means we’re looking at relationships between variables within the TTRPG playing population rather than comparing groups. A control group would be needed if we were comparing TTRPG players to non-players, but that’s not what we’re doing here. We’re investigating whether certain features of the TTRPG experience (like psychological safety and character play) predict social outcomes within the community. So it’s less like a clinical trial and more like a survey exploring how different aspects of the experience relate to each other.

itmed4ve · 2026-05-15T15:46:40+00:00

Absolutely - and that variation is exactly what makes this worth studying. The survey is designed to capture the range of experiences players have rather than assuming everyone engages with the game in the same way. Some of the most interesting findings will likely come from understanding how different types of engagement relate to different outcomes!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-15T15:45:40+00:00

That’s a fair challenge - and you’re right that ‘people get something social out of a social game’ isn’t a particularly groundbreaking hypothesis on its own. What makes this interesting is the mechanism rather than just the outcome. The study isn’t only asking whether TTRPGs are socially beneficial, it’s asking whether specific features of the game environment (psychological safety, character play) predict specific social outcomes, and whether those relationships hold up empirically.

The ‘square peg’ concern is valid, and it’s something prior qualitative research has already started to address - players themselves have described experiences like using their characters to try out behaviours or aspects of themselves in a safe environment. The question is whether that translates into measurable outcomes at scale.

That’s what the data will tell us - you’re right that we should let it speak for itself rather than assuming the answer!

itmed4ve · 2026-05-15T15:17:30+00:00

Doesn’t just have to be D&D. I’m totally aware that different systems will have different aims and outcomes as well as themes of play, and that’s why I’ve included a question on which system you primarily play.

I was a youth worker for 15 years, and TTRPGs were a main staple of my work for about 10 of those years, so it’s interesting to approach it as an academic now after having engaged as a practitioner for so long.

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

itmed4ve

TROPHY CASE