I don't have any data to back this up (or that I'm willing to look up at the moment), but from what I gather most campaigns last less than a year and break up by 10th level. Players leave the group, they get tired of the campaign and their PCs, a TPK wipes out the party, combats bog down and grow tiresome at high levels, the DM gets excited about running something else - there are myriad reasons why it's difficult for groups to stay together and maintain enthusiasm for a campaign long enough to reach 12th level, let alone 20th level.
These assumptions are based on my own experiences and what I've read on RPG forums for the last 15 years. But you can just look at the forum discussion around Pathfinder Adventure Paths, where the vast majority of discussion is around the first couple chapters and tails of dramatically with the later chapters. It stands to reason that reflects a drop-off in actual play as the AP progresses.
So why do publishers still design systems and publish campaigns with a default assumption of level 1-20? Why make the default something that only a fraction of groups will experience?
Are there commercial reasons to cater to the fraction of groups that make it past 12th level? Maybe. Though you'd think that publishing epic campaigns that only a fraction of groups finish would leave a lot of buyers disappointed.
Unless the number of groups who reach level 20 doesn't matter to buyers. Unless D&D is largely an aspirational endeavour, where the real-world likelihood of completing a campaign doesn't really affect buying.
I've come around to the belief that the great majority of the time, energy, and resources put into RPGs is never fulfilled in actual play, and never goes further than enticing prospects living in the imaginations of the creators and the buyers. And that this aspirational approach to the hobby is baked into both the industry and the culture around the game. Books are are designed to be read (often by buyers who don't actively game) rather than used at the table. Character progressions mapped out but never achieved. Campaigns promise epic arcs that are never fulfilled.
A D&D (and RPG hobby in general) that was built strictly around servicing the typical needs of actual play would look very, very different from what we have.
These assumptions are based on my own experiences and what I've read on RPG forums for the last 15 years. But you can just look at the forum discussion around Pathfinder Adventure Paths, where the vast majority of discussion is around the first couple chapters and tails of dramatically with the later chapters. It stands to reason that reflects a drop-off in actual play as the AP progresses.
So why do publishers still design systems and publish campaigns with a default assumption of level 1-20? Why make the default something that only a fraction of groups will experience?
Are there commercial reasons to cater to the fraction of groups that make it past 12th level? Maybe. Though you'd think that publishing epic campaigns that only a fraction of groups finish would leave a lot of buyers disappointed.
Unless the number of groups who reach level 20 doesn't matter to buyers. Unless D&D is largely an aspirational endeavour, where the real-world likelihood of completing a campaign doesn't really affect buying.
I've come around to the belief that the great majority of the time, energy, and resources put into RPGs is never fulfilled in actual play, and never goes further than enticing prospects living in the imaginations of the creators and the buyers. And that this aspirational approach to the hobby is baked into both the industry and the culture around the game. Books are are designed to be read (often by buyers who don't actively game) rather than used at the table. Character progressions mapped out but never achieved. Campaigns promise epic arcs that are never fulfilled.
A D&D (and RPG hobby in general) that was built strictly around servicing the typical needs of actual play would look very, very different from what we have.
