|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey everyone,
I want to first thank all the Pathfinders who have taken up the call to give to build our foundation of online GMs. I currently stand at 71 online GMs and counting. This will make the upcoming planning of game days and online conventions much easier (more on this to come...).
That being said, I want to offer some statistics to the community, for both GMs and players alike, to try and understand what the common VTTs for play and the communication tools used are currently. Along with GM information, I have also collected how each GM runs their games online. The following are percentages, based out of 71 GMs (so if you want to know a count, just multiply the perccentage by 71).
For VTTs:
Roll20.net - 56%
PbP - 42%
MapTools - 13%
D20Pro - 8%
FantasyGrounds - 7%
For Communication Tools*:
Google Hangout - 58%
Skype - 52%
TeamSpeak - 23%
Ventrilo - 17%
Mumble - 10%
TokBox - 1%
*It is assumed that the same percentage of GMs running PbP will use the same method they are running their game - AKA 42%
So what is the point of all this? Well, it is my hope that both GMs and players, but especially players, will use this information to plan accordingly for setting up accounts for the respective popular online VTTs and communication tools.
Stay tuned, because there is a lot more to come... :)
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Online
|
I suppose it came from the GMs that responded to Joe's GM information Request posted here and on other forums. Would be my guess.
- Jesse [IronHelixx]
PS - Sior: Up to this point, the PbP guys have had a virtual monopoly on the Paizo Messageboards, when it comes to online play - so they are highly represented here. :)
|
I suppose it came from the GMs that responded to Joe's GM information Request posted here and on other forums. Would be my guess.
- Jesse [IronHelixx]
PS - Sior: Up to this point, the PbP guys have had a virtual monopoly on the Paizo Messageboards, when it comes to online play - so they are highly represented here. :)
Makes sense, I just didn't realize it. Didn't click, as it were.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Online
|
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pxya?Call-for-all-Online-GMs#1
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pathfinder-society-online-collectiv e/l7k4yTDgcHM
And I thought there was a post here, in this section, too... don't see it any longer...
Anyone got a link to that post?
|
|
On Pathfinder Society Online Collective
And I thought there was a post here, in this section, too... don't see it any longer...
Links added so it's a click away rather than a copy/paste away.
|
|
Hey everyone,
I want to first thank all the Pathfinders who have taken up the call to give to build our foundation of online GMs. I currently stand at 71 online GMs and counting. This will make the upcoming planning of game days and online conventions much easier (more on this to come...).
That being said, I want to offer some statistics to the community, for both GMs and players alike, to try and understand what the common VTTs for play and the communication tools used are currently. Along with GM information, I have also collected how each GM runs their games online. The following are percentages, based out of 71 GMs (so if you want to know a count, just multiply the perccentage by 71).
Spoiler:
For VTTs:
Roll20.net - 56%
PbP - 42%
MapTools - 13%
D20Pro - 8%
FantasyGrounds - 7%For Communication Tools*:
Google Hangout - 58%
Skype - 52%
TeamSpeak - 23%
Ventrilo - 17%
Mumble - 10%
TokBox - 1%
*It is assumed that the same percentage of GMs running PbP will use the same method they are running their game - AKA 42%So what is the point of all this? Well, it is my hope that both GMs and players, but especially players, will use this information to plan accordingly for setting up accounts for the respective popular online VTTs and communication tools.
Stay tuned, because there is a lot more to come... :)
These numbers are extremely misleading. They are only based on a very small sampling of actual data... so misleading as to be actually somewhat dangerous. By posting these numbers you could potentially skew future data and usage. Is that the goal? You need to find a better way to collect your data than random sampling. Perhaps if something could be added to the Game Reporting are to include more info on Online Play.. then you'd get some really good and accurate data...
I'm excited that you guys are taking an interest in Online play and looking forward to what great things you can do to help us all run more games easily and better.
|
|
These numbers are extremely misleading. They are only based on a very small sampling of actual data...
He put an open call to online GM's and worked with what the GM's provided him with. Granted, he did so in another section of the forums, but that was because there was no Online section yet. If information is missing, it's because he was not given it, though everyone was asked. So not really a random sampling, as you put it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I not only put out a call on these forums, but other online places as well. And not to mention, a lot of word-of-mouth got out about this.
I would venture to say that 71 Online PFS GMs is a pretty decent sample size. I doubt any single region could put together a list of 70+ GMs (mainly due to the fact there aren't 70+. And these GMs are going to the first ones I ask to sign-up to GM on our official Online gamedays and Online conventions. So it is important for folks to know what they can expect. As I get more Online GMs I will update this information, but this is a great starting point.
So could you please tell me how you came to the conclusion this is misleading and dangerous? What basis do you have to go off of?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is going to be a biased sample, because it's a self-selecting set of responders. As such, you can't be sure at all that this is "representative".
If you did want a representative sample, you'd have to be careful to figure out what it was representative of, and then you'd have to carefully design your survey or your sampling so that it really worked that way. Do you want the statistics of who uses which tools to be representative of the number of GMs that used each tool? The relative frequency of games that each tool has? The relative preference of GMs or players for different tool? Etc.
Collecting data for statistics properly is very difficult.
HOWEVER. None of this makes it dangerous or misleading. It's only misleading if you claim that it's representative. If you're open about what it IS (which you have been), there's nothing dangerous or misleading about it. And, it's useful. It's "here's a list of what GMs who responded to my survey say that they use, and here's how frequently those GMs say they use those tools."
This is useful for people who are interested in say, "what are the sorts of tools I might be looking at, and are there a reasonable number of people out there using them?"
Is it possible that everybody hates Roll20 and all of the few people who like it responded to the survey, thereby making it look more popular than it really is? Yes. Is that likely? No. You couldn't use this data to assert that "more than half of all online GMs prefer Roll20". Yes, more than half of the people who responded did, but you can't be sure that it's a representative sample.
However, you can use this data to answer the question "Is Roll20 or Maptools tool in use by PFS GMs, and that as such I might be able to find a game that uses it?" The answer is clearly Yes.
So, dangerous and misleading? Absolutely not. A statistically representative sample? No. Useful? Yes. Data obtained with a whole lot more effort could potentially be more useful, but practically speaking the additional use probably is not worth the effort necessary to really do it right.
|
|
Notice how I did not even use the word bias in my post. I know about random sampling and bias, and I never made any statement that it was either. It is representative of the GMs who will populate organized game days as soon as they are announced (because we are not going to have random GM sign-ups because we need prior information to make sure they are getting the scenarios they need to run the games they are schedule for - as well as a way to hold GMs accountable to making sure they are running games for the gamedays). As I get more GMs, I will update these numbers. But right now I'm currently around ~80 GMs and there hasn't been any significant change in the numbers stated in the first post.
|
These numbers are extremely misleading. They are only based on a very small sampling of actual data... so misleading as to be actually somewhat dangerous. By posting these numbers you could potentially skew future data and usage.
If you know of communities of GMs that are unaware of the survey, why not point them to the relevant post and encourage them to send their info in, so Joseph has more data to go on?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that random sampling is never an accurate way to accumulate data. I'm not trying to be critical, just suggesting that you should find a better way to accumulate your data before posting it. I would venture that MOST GMs don't frequent these forums.
My suggestion about dropping a tick box or an entry field into the reporting web page would give you some real data to work with. Should be able to get an idea of how many games are running on line right now based on how many GMs tick the 'game is run online' (or whatever it actually says) on the current reporting page. All that would be needed was another line to either select from a list or fill in a box. If you want to get the info in a consistent format, a list would be good, but you would still want a fill-in box so 'new' things can show up.. things that you might be unaware of.
|
|
My point is that random sampling is never an accurate way to accumulate data.
You are incorrect about that.
Indeed, in most cases, when you're trying to gather data about a population, random sampling is what you want to do. What's hard is really doing random sampling. But if you really are randomly sampling a population, that's the best you can do, other than measuring 100% of the population (which in any study of a population of significant size is often impossible).
It's when your sample isn't random that biases creep in. And, as Joseph Caubo admits, this isn't a random sample he's collected. However, the information still means something. What's more, at least one part of the non-randomness is a feature-- that is, the people he's sampled are also likely to be biased towards the people who will respond in a call for an online game day. So, for what he wants to use it for, that's useful. That is, it's a better representative sample of "GMs who will respond to a game day call" than it is of "GMs who play online".
|
|
In this case though, it actually is possible to assess 100% of the population by using the technology that is currently available. It is not only possible, but relatively simple. I just requires a bit of noodling to make it happen and the presence of mind to think of it.
Look.. I'm glad to see more focus being put toward online play, it is the way of the future. I'm just trying to help them get a better idea of what they are really dealing with.
|
|
I would venture that MOST GMs don't frequent these forums.
Which is why it was also posted on other forums.
My suggestion about dropping a tick box or an entry field into the reporting web page would give you some real data to work with. Should be able to get an idea of how many games are running on line right now based on how many GMs tick the 'game is run online' (or whatever it actually says) on the current reporting page. All that would be needed was another line to either select from a list or fill in a box. If you want to get the info in a consistent format, a list would be good, but you would still want a fill-in box so 'new' things can show up.. things that you might be unaware of.
There are some problems though:
- It uses up developer time, which is at a premium due to initiatives like Gamespace,- It probably takes up more of Joseph's time too; rather than just putting a simple message out on a few forums, he's having to spec out additions to the reporting system and convince Paizo employees that its worth the effort,
- It adds complexity to the reporting for GMs (another box to eyeball, whether or not they're running online),
- It only captures people who have GMed games online, rather than people who want to GM games online.
The data gathered so far seems like a good compromise between ease of gathering and representativeness. The best thing to do to improve it in the short term is to publicise the call for survey responses far and wide.
|
@Blackfoot: Part of what you suggested is already included in the Event Registration system. A checkbox for "Game is online."
ALso, please note, Joe did not just post here, he also polled the people on several online PFS groups, and was also asking for links or information on places where online PFS is done.
So, anyone who didn't respond as an online PFS GM is going to be an online PFS GM who is not on any of the forums/message boards that Joe got information on, with several of those forums giving him information on additional firums.
And, given where I am sure he asked, he probably canvassed a good proportion of the online PFS GMs.
Some of the forums/sites I know he has been informed of and/or I can verify he has pooisted on or is working with:
The Pathfinder Society Online Collective
Fantasy Grounds PFS forums
RPG Geek
Mythweavers
ENWorld
Paizo's Online forums
|
@Blackfoot: Part of what you suggested is already included in the Event Registration system. A checkbox for "Game is online."
That's a great start, but that isn't what's being asked here. It does show that what he's asking could potentially be added in, though.
Some of the forums/sites I know he has been informed of and/or I can verify he has posted on or is working with:
The Pathfinder Society Online Collective
Fantasy Grounds PFS forums
RPG Geek
Mythweavers
ENWorld
Paizo's Online forums
I'm on 2 of those groups and I still missed it, I'm a pretty active online GM, and very active on paizo's forums (not to mention that this forum was new).
It would've been near impossible to miss in the reporting.