Oh yes, because if there's one thing we know about large corporations producing disposable income products it's that they have absolutely no reason to invest in effective market research of how consumers are using their existing products. If you don't care to acknowledge the number, fine you do whatever, but let's not pretend that market research is not an extensive field of study where companies have a vested interest in getting accurate results.
The recent playtests would be pretty solid evidence that they are absolutely terrible at writing and dissecting surveys so the they are a giant corporation defense doesn't really ring true.
Without the source it is just conjecture, throwing numbers in an argument without the source (especially when they side with the argument being pushed) is super sketchy especially when asked to provide them and the answer is go find them yourself. Super greasy.
Except I did share my source: WotC. So, none of the above applies, and all of it is simply saying that I am an untrustworthy person by fabrication -- an ad hominem and bad faith statement. The bolded portions are all direct personal attacks.
Now, if you mean I am supposed to provide you with a specific link, well, now, this isn't a school course or a peer reviewed journal.
I am under no obligation to do so, and asking for someone to provide the information that you are supposed to be capable of looking up is an appeal to authority -- my authority, specifically -- that is essentially telling someone you don't trust or believe or accept at face value (an ac of bad faith) that you will trust, accept, and believe the things that they provide you, which is simply asinine to do. Hi, I don't believe you will eat my face, so, please, eat my face to prove it.
Ok well, yeah, we are talking about the Monster Manual, so I can see how that might be a thought.
If you are asserting that because I "did not provide a source" that I am somehow to be considered lesser, that's an additional act of bad faith, as well as an ad hominem, because it targets the character in order to undermine them.
Now, all of that only applies in circumstances where someone is willing to change their mind as a result of an argument -- which, I will note one more time, was not the case.
We had a disagreement. A disagreement is not an argument. An argument generally requires that people be willing to change their minds -- because good faith requires it. Being unwilling to change one's mind means that one cannot argue in good faith.
You can disagree, and not seek to change someone's mind, however. I am disagreeing and providing the rationale for my disagreement, not trying to change their minds. I cannot argue with them or attempt to change their minds because I am unwilling to change my own mind -- meaning that a disagreement is all I can do.
So, although it is stretching things a tad, I could point out that offering a link to something that anyone else could look up if they took the ******* time out of their day to do so (which they would have to do in a debate) would be me engaging in a bad faith argument, since I would then be falling into a trap of shifting to an argument instead of exposition, as the purpose in doing so would be to change their mind.
But I am not seeking to change their minds. Nor yours, for that matter. I don't give a spell component's hind end if you believe, feel, think, or otherwise attempt to consider the information truthful and accurate. I know it is, and it is what I base my statements on, and I do not do so to change your mind or make you think differently.
I do it to illustrate a counterpoint, provide a possible rationale, and to participate in the thread. Because I am not going to engage with someone who is acting in bad faith, nor am I going to engage in bad faith. That's is unproductive.
My only concern is that if someone lies about me, or defames me, then I have something to say. Which I have now done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Oh yes, because if there's one thing we know about large corporations producing disposable income products it's that they have absolutely no reason to invest in effective market research of how consumers are using their existing products. If you don't care to acknowledge the number, fine you do whatever, but let's not pretend that market research is not an extensive field of study where companies have a vested interest in getting accurate results.
The recent playtests would be pretty solid evidence that they are absolutely terrible at writing and dissecting surveys so the they are a giant corporation defense doesn't really ring true.
Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results. (Which is perfectly reasonable. Not everyone will like everything.) But even if 80% agree, 20% don’t. (And they only shoot for 70, so 80 is even higher than the minimum.) At either percentage that’s hundreds of thousands of people in the 20%, probably more than 1 million. Plenty enough to raise their (fair and reasonable) concerns on the internet and certainly a lot of people. But still distinct minority.
Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results.
The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).
Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results.
The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).
Or, they’re very well aware of the limitations of their survey techniques, and use the demographic and other data they collect to weight the responses.
Why are people so willing to assume a multi-billion dollar company with a wildly successful product doesn’t understand how to run a market research survey? Them not sharing their proprietary customer information doesn’t mean they don’t have it.
If they thought people wanted the lore, they’d print the lore.
Or, they’re very well aware of the limitations of their survey techniques, and use the demographic and other data they collect to weight the responses.
Why are people so willing to assume a multi-billion dollar company with a wildly successful product doesn’t understand how to run a market research survey?
Plenty of larger corporations have fumbled their market research, but I expect they're aware of the limitations of their survey tech and just don't consider it worth the cost to try and do better. Also, why would they do weighting in the numbers they tell us? Sure, they probably do subgroup analysis based on the demographic information they ask for, but they aren't an election polling company.
Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results.
The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).
Or, they’re very well aware of the limitations of their survey techniques, and use the demographic and other data they collect to weight the responses.
Why are people so willing to assume a multi-billion dollar company with a wildly successful product doesn’t understand how to run a market research survey? Them not sharing their proprietary customer information doesn’t mean they don’t have it.
If they thought people wanted the lore, they’d print the lore.
However, if the billion dollar company where to release their market research survey, and it was discovered that the product is not as widely successful as advertised, that company would have to do a massive amount of work to make it look better and possibly change course. But we all know it far easier and less expensive to just be as non-transparent about the actual results of any market research so that implied success is based on twisting the data to make it sound like all is wonderful. Corps have been spinning market analysis data for centuries, and Hasbro/WotC has become just as sleazy as any other major corporation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results.
The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).
Or, they’re very well aware of the limitations of their survey techniques, and use the demographic and other data they collect to weight the responses.
Why are people so willing to assume a multi-billion dollar company with a wildly successful product doesn’t understand how to run a market research survey? Them not sharing their proprietary customer information doesn’t mean they don’t have it.
If they thought people wanted the lore, they’d print the lore.
Why are you so wiling to worship them and assume they are infallible.
Why are you so wiling to worship them and assume they are infallible.
There's a difference between assuming they're infallible, and assuming that your personal experience is more reliable than their data (note that the actual data point that Wizards cares about, and the real test for how good the market survey is, is how the book ends up selling). As such, the most valuable data point Wizards actually has is how well MotM (which replaced two books with lots of lore with one book with not much lore) actually sold, and I assume it sold well enough for them not to decide to change course.
Hasbro didn’t become as sleazy as any other major corp recently — they were that way before D&D even existed. At the very least since 1970 and the Romper Room stuff.
They are not infallible, either; no one is. It would be disingenuous to suggest that pointing out reasonable statements regarding their business operations are equivalent to worship or even a liking of them.
It is also reasonable to expect that when folks spread falsehoods regarding them that others will offer statements of correction that contradict those falsehoods.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results.
The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).
So surveys are biased towards the people that respond to surveys? What exactly are you expecting them to do about that?
Not to mentions, surveys were never their only source of information on how people play the game and what they care about, especially now.
So surveys are biased towards the people that respond to surveys? What exactly are you expecting them to do about that?
Response bias is a known problem in polling; there are techniques for improving it the results, but they are substantially more expensive and still imperfect.
As far as response bias goes in polling corporations have biases towards people who fill out their surveys. A company is not interested in groups of people that, no matter what they do, will never want their products. The selective response biases are less of an issue when those that are likely to fill it out still accurately represent the group that you are actually interested in. WotC is not interested in what everyone in the world things, they are interested in what do people who buy WotC products think and the people that fill out the polls are going to be closer to that than not. This doesn't mean they are perfect and they realize this. Just look at the last 2 surveys, they completely changed their questionnaire and survey set up, probably to get more accurate results and feedback. They may miss the mark for some, but it is unmistakable that their ultimate goal is to please as many customers as possible. That's how every company functions because pleasing customers means returning customers, and possibly growing customer base, means more sales, means happy share holders means they stay in business and have jobs.
As far as response bias goes in polling corporations have biases towards people who fill out their surveys. A company is not interested in groups of people that, no matter what they do, will never want their products.
The problem isn't that you wind up with people who buy your product. The problem is that you wind up with a subset of your buyers, who are not necessarily representative. This doesn't mean the data is useless... just imperfect.
As far as response bias goes in polling corporations have biases towards people who fill out their surveys. A company is not interested in groups of people that, no matter what they do, will never want their products.
The problem isn't that you wind up with people who buy your product. The problem is that you wind up with a subset of your buyers, who are not necessarily representative. This doesn't mean the data is useless... just imperfect.
All data is imperfect, I doubt that this was the only data point they had. They seemed pretty adamant that it wasn't. Of course that doesn't mean the choice they made was right either. I don't think the method they came up with to come to their conclusions or the reason they did what they did is really relevant in the end. In the end it is either the product appeals to you or it doesn't. But obviously the goal will always be to appeal to the most amount of customers as they can and their isn't much incentive for them to do less than the best that they can. So far I am pretty pleased with 2024 over 2014 even if I still find 2024 isn't perfect. I didn't find 2014 perfect either.
So surveys are biased towards the people that respond to surveys? What exactly are you expecting them to do about that?
Response bias is a known problem in polling; there are techniques for improving it the results, but they are substantially more expensive and still imperfect.
No no, leave those goalposts where they are. You're not alluding to a mere slant in the survey responses, but the notion that huge swaths of the playerbase are not capable of being represented in them at all, despite their polls not excluding anyone or having any real barriers to participation. And you're basing this conclusion on.... absolutely nothing that I can see.
All data is imperfect, I doubt that this was the only data point they had. They seemed pretty adamant that it wasn't. Of course that doesn't mean the choice they made was right either. I don't think the method they came up with to come to their conclusions or the reason they did what they did is really relevant in the end. In the end it is either the product appeals to you or it doesn't. But obviously the goal will always be to appeal to the most amount of customers as they can and their isn't much incentive for them to do less than the best that they can. So far I am pretty pleased with 2024 over 2014 even if I still find 2024 isn't perfect. I didn't find 2014 perfect either.
This too - they have access to other data sources, such as seeing what we use in play, and how many people use printed vs homebrew settings.
No no, leave those goalposts where they are. You're not alluding to a mere slant in the survey responses, but the notion that huge swaths of the playerbase are not capable of being represented in them at all.
There is a huge swath of the playerbase that does not meaningfully interact with D&D media (many don't interact with D&D at all outside of their games). This group is hard to poll (it's hard to even know how many there are, though counting sales of the PHB is at least a semi-plausible proxy).
Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results.
The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).
So surveys are biased towards the people that respond to surveys? What exactly are you expecting them to do about that?
Not to mentions, surveys were never their only source of information on how people play the game and what they care about, especially now.
Yes, they are. I... don't really care what they do. If they can't account for it...the numbers are crap. If I say that there will be a massive solar flare in 100 days from now, someone points out that my maths is bogus and it's essentially random, the correct response isn't "what do you expect me to do about it? Invent new physics that will let me predict the future?", it's to recognise that my numbers are essentially useless. That there isn't a better way to do it is irrelevant - it's either a useful tool or it's not, and it's not.
60% is about as good a guess as 50%, 40% or even 30%. Or even 70% or 80%. There is a substantial number of homebrew games, and a substantial number of published adventures. Trying to divine via tealeaves the exact ratio is kinda pointless in my opinion.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I was formerly in research. You do not need to have very many responses to get a representative sample. You can get a representative sample with as few as 100 completed surveys. The smaller the sample, the larger the margin of error. Fortunately, WotC does not have that problem and reliably gets thousands of surveys whenever they put one out. This is representative data and the margin of error would be small. It took my team about two years to gather the number of surveys WotC gets in a couple weeks, and my research was representative of tens of millions of people.
I was formerly in research. You do not need to have very many responses to get a representative sample.
You don't need that many responses to not worry about random error -- given X respondents, your responses will 95% of the time be within 100/sqrt(X)% of the true value -- but number of responses doesn't help at all with non-random bias.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The recent playtests would be pretty solid evidence that they are absolutely terrible at writing and dissecting surveys so the they are a giant corporation defense doesn't really ring true.
Except I did share my source: WotC. So, none of the above applies, and all of it is simply saying that I am an untrustworthy person by fabrication -- an ad hominem and bad faith statement. The bolded portions are all direct personal attacks.
Now, if you mean I am supposed to provide you with a specific link, well, now, this isn't a school course or a peer reviewed journal.
I am under no obligation to do so, and asking for someone to provide the information that you are supposed to be capable of looking up is an appeal to authority -- my authority, specifically -- that is essentially telling someone you don't trust or believe or accept at face value (an ac of bad faith) that you will trust, accept, and believe the things that they provide you, which is simply asinine to do. Hi, I don't believe you will eat my face, so, please, eat my face to prove it.
Ok well, yeah, we are talking about the Monster Manual, so I can see how that might be a thought.
If you are asserting that because I "did not provide a source" that I am somehow to be considered lesser, that's an additional act of bad faith, as well as an ad hominem, because it targets the character in order to undermine them.
Now, all of that only applies in circumstances where someone is willing to change their mind as a result of an argument -- which, I will note one more time, was not the case.
We had a disagreement. A disagreement is not an argument. An argument generally requires that people be willing to change their minds -- because good faith requires it. Being unwilling to change one's mind means that one cannot argue in good faith.
You can disagree, and not seek to change someone's mind, however. I am disagreeing and providing the rationale for my disagreement, not trying to change their minds. I cannot argue with them or attempt to change their minds because I am unwilling to change my own mind -- meaning that a disagreement is all I can do.
So, although it is stretching things a tad, I could point out that offering a link to something that anyone else could look up if they took the ******* time out of their day to do so (which they would have to do in a debate) would be me engaging in a bad faith argument, since I would then be falling into a trap of shifting to an argument instead of exposition, as the purpose in doing so would be to change their mind.
But I am not seeking to change their minds. Nor yours, for that matter. I don't give a spell component's hind end if you believe, feel, think, or otherwise attempt to consider the information truthful and accurate. I know it is, and it is what I base my statements on, and I do not do so to change your mind or make you think differently.
I do it to illustrate a counterpoint, provide a possible rationale, and to participate in the thread. Because I am not going to engage with someone who is acting in bad faith, nor am I going to engage in bad faith. That's is unproductive.
My only concern is that if someone lies about me, or defames me, then I have something to say. Which I have now done.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results. (Which is perfectly reasonable. Not everyone will like everything.) But even if 80% agree, 20% don’t. (And they only shoot for 70, so 80 is even higher than the minimum.) At either percentage that’s hundreds of thousands of people in the 20%, probably more than 1 million. Plenty enough to raise their (fair and reasonable) concerns on the internet and certainly a lot of people. But still distinct minority.
The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).
Or, they’re very well aware of the limitations of their survey techniques, and use the demographic and other data they collect to weight the responses.
Why are people so willing to assume a multi-billion dollar company with a wildly successful product doesn’t understand how to run a market research survey? Them not sharing their proprietary customer information doesn’t mean they don’t have it.
If they thought people wanted the lore, they’d print the lore.
Plenty of larger corporations have fumbled their market research, but I expect they're aware of the limitations of their survey tech and just don't consider it worth the cost to try and do better. Also, why would they do weighting in the numbers they tell us? Sure, they probably do subgroup analysis based on the demographic information they ask for, but they aren't an election polling company.
However, if the billion dollar company where to release their market research survey, and it was discovered that the product is not as widely successful as advertised, that company would have to do a massive amount of work to make it look better and possibly change course.
But we all know it far easier and less expensive to just be as non-transparent about the actual results of any market research so that implied success is based on twisting the data to make it sound like all is wonderful. Corps have been spinning market analysis data for centuries, and Hasbro/WotC has become just as sleazy as any other major corporation.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Why are you so wiling to worship them and assume they are infallible.
There's a difference between assuming they're infallible, and assuming that your personal experience is more reliable than their data (note that the actual data point that Wizards cares about, and the real test for how good the market survey is, is how the book ends up selling). As such, the most valuable data point Wizards actually has is how well MotM (which replaced two books with lots of lore with one book with not much lore) actually sold, and I assume it sold well enough for them not to decide to change course.
Hasbro didn’t become as sleazy as any other major corp recently — they were that way before D&D even existed. At the very least since 1970 and the Romper Room stuff.
They are not infallible, either; no one is. It would be disingenuous to suggest that pointing out reasonable statements regarding their business operations are equivalent to worship or even a liking of them.
It is also reasonable to expect that when folks spread falsehoods regarding them that others will offer statements of correction that contradict those falsehoods.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
So surveys are biased towards the people that respond to surveys? What exactly are you expecting them to do about that?
Not to mentions, surveys were never their only source of information on how people play the game and what they care about, especially now.
Response bias is a known problem in polling; there are techniques for improving it the results, but they are substantially more expensive and still imperfect.
As far as response bias goes in polling corporations have biases towards people who fill out their surveys. A company is not interested in groups of people that, no matter what they do, will never want their products. The selective response biases are less of an issue when those that are likely to fill it out still accurately represent the group that you are actually interested in. WotC is not interested in what everyone in the world things, they are interested in what do people who buy WotC products think and the people that fill out the polls are going to be closer to that than not. This doesn't mean they are perfect and they realize this. Just look at the last 2 surveys, they completely changed their questionnaire and survey set up, probably to get more accurate results and feedback. They may miss the mark for some, but it is unmistakable that their ultimate goal is to please as many customers as possible. That's how every company functions because pleasing customers means returning customers, and possibly growing customer base, means more sales, means happy share holders means they stay in business and have jobs.
The problem isn't that you wind up with people who buy your product. The problem is that you wind up with a subset of your buyers, who are not necessarily representative. This doesn't mean the data is useless... just imperfect.
All data is imperfect, I doubt that this was the only data point they had. They seemed pretty adamant that it wasn't. Of course that doesn't mean the choice they made was right either. I don't think the method they came up with to come to their conclusions or the reason they did what they did is really relevant in the end. In the end it is either the product appeals to you or it doesn't. But obviously the goal will always be to appeal to the most amount of customers as they can and their isn't much incentive for them to do less than the best that they can. So far I am pretty pleased with 2024 over 2014 even if I still find 2024 isn't perfect. I didn't find 2014 perfect either.
No no, leave those goalposts where they are. You're not alluding to a mere slant in the survey responses, but the notion that huge swaths of the playerbase are not capable of being represented in them at all, despite their polls not excluding anyone or having any real barriers to participation. And you're basing this conclusion on.... absolutely nothing that I can see.
This too - they have access to other data sources, such as seeing what we use in play, and how many people use printed vs homebrew settings.
There is a huge swath of the playerbase that does not meaningfully interact with D&D media (many don't interact with D&D at all outside of their games). This group is hard to poll (it's hard to even know how many there are, though counting sales of the PHB is at least a semi-plausible proxy).
Yes, they are. I... don't really care what they do. If they can't account for it...the numbers are crap. If I say that there will be a massive solar flare in 100 days from now, someone points out that my maths is bogus and it's essentially random, the correct response isn't "what do you expect me to do about it? Invent new physics that will let me predict the future?", it's to recognise that my numbers are essentially useless. That there isn't a better way to do it is irrelevant - it's either a useful tool or it's not, and it's not.
60% is about as good a guess as 50%, 40% or even 30%. Or even 70% or 80%. There is a substantial number of homebrew games, and a substantial number of published adventures. Trying to divine via tealeaves the exact ratio is kinda pointless in my opinion.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I was formerly in research. You do not need to have very many responses to get a representative sample. You can get a representative sample with as few as 100 completed surveys. The smaller the sample, the larger the margin of error. Fortunately, WotC does not have that problem and reliably gets thousands of surveys whenever they put one out. This is representative data and the margin of error would be small. It took my team about two years to gather the number of surveys WotC gets in a couple weeks, and my research was representative of tens of millions of people.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
You don't need that many responses to not worry about random error -- given X respondents, your responses will 95% of the time be within 100/sqrt(X)% of the true value -- but number of responses doesn't help at all with non-random bias.