D&D General Breadth vs Depth: Is D&D designed the wrong way around?

[Maxperson]

what reason would they have to lie and make that level range lower? If anything the incentive would be to make it wider imo.

Given that DDB reaches about 50% of players, I’d say their statistics are pretty accurate, certainly moreso than some anecdotal ‘evidence’

As I said in my last post, for me to hit that many consecutive 5% chance of occurring groups is at least one in four quadrillion. Basically I rolled a dozen plus consecutive natural 20's. I've never seen a group that only played to low or mid levels.

 

[AnotherGuy]

This brings us back to the playstyle modules that Mike Mearls talked about back in the day. We are going to see some of this with the alternate takes on 5e by third parties, though whether their mechanics can be separated from their game to be used in another game.

Agree. These days I'm redesigning the entire game, poaching from wherever.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Do you have any actual survey data to back it up? Because unless you do, I'm going to go with the survey data. D&D Beyond is just the newest iteration thereof. Believe me, I wish high-level D&D were more common. I find low-level D&D boring and doubly anxious (in the sense of "I want to get to the--mechanically--good stuff," and in the sense of "oh boy, yet another chance to die for stupid, pointless reasons without achieving anything or getting anywhere, scrapping yet another fun story...")

Teh problem with the survey data is that it does not give any information as to why there is a lack of high level play.

 

[Cruentus]

As I said in my last post, for me to hit that many consecutive 5% chance of occurring groups is at least one in four quadrillion. Basically I rolled a dozen plus consecutive natural 20's. I've never seen a group that only played to low or mid levels.

Been playing since B/X and Ad&d with the same group of people, so over 40 years, and I've never played in a campaign where I got higher than 11th. And we've played a LOT of DnD. During the pandemic (in the last 3 years), playing online with the same group, we played a mashup of Tiamat/STK for 2 real years and I got to W12/F2, so effectively 14th level. And the DM stopped the game (brought it to a conclusion) because it was pants on head stupid the capabilities of the party compared to the modules/antagonists.

So, for every example of "we always play high level", there are actually counterexamples of "we always played low levels". And, for the record, I prefer low levels, with 7th in B/X and Ad&d as being my sweet spot - high enough to survive fairly easily against orcs and such, but actual monsters like dragons and demons and things were challenging. So, yeah.

 

[Maxperson]

Been playing since B/X and Ad&d with the same group of people, so over 40 years, and I've never played in a campaign where I got higher than 11th. And we've played a LOT of DnD. During the pandemic (in the last 3 years), playing online with the same group, we played a mashup of Tiamat/STK for 2 real years and I got to W12/F2, so effectively 14th level. And the DM stopped the game (brought it to a conclusion) because it was pants on head stupid the capabilities of the party compared to the modules/antagonists.

So, for every example of "we always play high level", there are actually counterexamples of "we always played low levels". And, for the record, I prefer low levels, with 7th in B/X and Ad&d as being my sweet spot - high enough to survive fairly easily against orcs and such, but actual monsters like dragons and demons and things were challenging. So, yeah.

You're example is not a counter example. You've played in 1 group. I've played in 12+ and all of them went played high level. 1 does not counter 12+. A counter would be someone who played in 12+ groups and none of them played high level, and even that doesn't counter it since we're talking 5% of hitting high level. Maybe someone who played in 12+ groups over 40 years and none went past 1st level might be a counter. I don't know the odds of that.

Edit: 11% according to D&D Beyond never hit second level, so even 12+ consecutive groups stopping at 1st level wouldn't do it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

During the pandemic (in the last 3 years), playing online with the same group, we played a mashup of Tiamat/STK for 2 real years and I got to W12/F2, so effectively 14th level. And the DM stopped the game (brought it to a conclusion) because it was pants on head stupid the capabilities of the party compared to the modules/antagonists.

That's funny, our table's PCs are playing in that exact mashup AND are currently 14th. I have indeed upped the capabilities/lethality of the opponents within the AP's to deal with the power level of the PCs. I've predominantly leaned on feats and class features but Enworld's Level Up Monsters, the Expanded Monster Manual's from Nixlord and a few choice items on DMsGuild have also been great resources and it has been fun.
As a DM I'm enjoying the challenges that High Level is bringing to the table and it is possibly the reason why I have decided to rewrite much of the game's rules.

I've also seen how Tasha's and some rulings by the WotC mob have made things worse overall, particularly in the casting of spells. I've thought of how I want magic to be cast in our fantasy world, how many hands one needs free, how material components or the arcane focus/divine symbol needs to be handled and what limitations does that bring in terms of instruments that can be an arcane focus as well as the action economy with weapons/shields used in the midst of combat.

I find one has to be a firm DM with certain rules such as the above to ensure that players don't exacerbate the problem of High Level play, with them being "too proactive" with their interpretation of the rules.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Would this mean actually making levels 1-2 playable or would they still be secret 0 levels and now we only have 8 levels to play in?

If we're dialing in, I'd cut off the bottom 2 and top 3 levels instead.

 

[Cruentus]

You're example is not a counter example. You've played in 1 group. I've played in 12+ and all of them went played high level. 1 does not counter 12+. A counter would be someone who played in 12+ groups and none of them played high level, and even that doesn't counter it since we're talking 5% of hitting high level. Maybe someone who played in 12+ groups over 40 years and none went past 1st level might be a counter. I don't know the odds of that.

Edit: 11% according to D&D Beyond never hit second level, so even 12+ consecutive groups stopping at 1st level wouldn't do it.

Okay. Over 40 years, that's multiple tables/campaigns, with differing people at the table at different times as folks cycle in and out, in different venues. I'd count that as more than "1 group". I could also point to 3 other groups I know (my son is in/has been in/has run) that have gone nowhere near the teens. So, again, your experience, while valid, is not statistically significant enough to make claims across all of "DnD groups".

 

[Maxperson]

That's funny, our table's PCs are playing in that exact mashup AND are currently 14th. I have indeed upped the capabilities/lethality of the opponents within the AP's to deal with the power level of the PCs. I've predominantly leaned on feats and class features but Enworld's Level Up Monsters, the Expanded Monster Manual's from Nixlord and a few choice items on DMsGuild have also been great resources and it has been fun.
As a DM I'm enjoying the challenges that High Level is bringing to the table and it is possibly the reason why I have decided to rewrite much of the game's rules.

I've also seen how Tasha's and some rulings by the WotC mob have made things worse overall, particularly in the casting of spells. I've thought of how I want magic to be cast in our fantasy world, how many hands one needs free, how material components or the arcane focus/divine symbol needs to be handled and what limitations does that bring in terms of instruments that can be an arcane focus as well as the action economy with weapons/shields used in the midst of combat.

I find one has to be a firm DM with certain rules such as the above to ensure that players don't exacerbate the problem of High Level play, with them being "too proactive" with their interpretation of the rules.

I've found that once you hit the teens or higher in level, you have to stop relying so much on fights to be the solution to things. The fights are fun and should definitely happen, but high level play focuses less on those.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. Over 40 years, that's multiple tables/campaigns, with differing people at the table at different times as folks cycle in and out, in different venues. I'd count that as more than "1 group". I could also point to 3 other groups I know (my son is in/has been in/has run) that have gone nowhere near the teens. So, again, your experience, while valid, is not statistically significant enough to make claims across all of "DnD groups".

Sure. I could have hit the one in four quadrillion D&D lotto. I guess. I've been playing the actual lottery for 30 years and I've yet to hit that measly one in two hundred million lotto, though. You'd think that would be easy after one in four quadrillion.