I dont get whats wrong with powerfull PCs.
Going toe to toe with a Demon Lord and winning is fun. Being Elminster or Mordenkainen is fun.
It's not that players prefer low level play that low level play is common; it's that most DMs cant properly run games in mid to high level, and quit the campaign at that point.
No, it IS what players prefer or else every survey I've ever seen is wrong. Besides, it's not what you play, it's how you play it. E6
is (or at least aimed to be):
- Fast play at every level.
- Focus on planning, not leveling. To defeat powerful opponents the PC's utilize information, terrain, consideration of strategy and tactics, or bringing in assistance, not they themselves just having MORE spells, MORE levels, MORE hit dice.
- A game that everyone knows how to play. Higher spell levels ARE the ones seen the least and the ones that are least tested and most problematic, but low level spells have been seen many, many times, and mastery over their use is simpler.
- Encounters are always relevant.
- Classic monsters STAY relevant over the entire campaign.
- "Legendary" heroes remain mortal. A fighter, regardless of abilities isn’t invulnerable. A sorcerer is never so powerful that he fears no retaliation for destroying a village.
- Quicker prep and easier improvisation at all times for a DM.
The more sheer levels that characters have, the more lengthy the roster of spells and powers to choose from, the more that numbers of all kinds get inflated for any reason, the more complicated the game becomes to both play and run, and the greater the distortion of gameplay from where PC's are when they BEGIN play, to where continued play is simply given up.
You're perhaps right that most DM's can't properly run games mid-to-high level and just quit.
That is a problem with the game even if it's 5th Edition and it means PLAYERS will prefer better-run games at lower levels just as DM's are better AT those kinds of games.
There is nothing wrong with powerful PC's but "powerful" according to what metric? A powerful PC can be 6th, just as they can be 20th or 100th. A "Demon Lord" can be 9th level, 30th level, or 150th. The NUMBER there doesn't matter. The way that the game plays out AT that number, whatever it is, is what matters. It matters that the DM can always easily provide challenges and interesting events with known monsters much less things that players have never seen before. It matters that players
not so inclined don't need to always buy more and more sourcebooks or utilize new and exotic classes, races and abilities to create bigger/better PC's and COMPETE AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS who do. It matters that the DM can prepare a game session in a few hours rather than a few days. It matters that the DM and players are familiar enough with the rules they DO use that they can improvise more easily when games go pear-shaped and still have fun.
Higher levels is not
equivalent to a better game, a more enjoyable experience. If it is then every designer of D&D ever has failed at a basic task - eliminating the un-fun/less-fun lower levels. Every survey
I've ever seen says that players
do prefer lower-level games even if those same surveys never explain why. If it's because the great number of DM's are just too incompetent to run higher level games it STILL means those players are going to prefer lower level games BECAUSE of that. Maybe that would change when D&D designers create a game that MOST DM's CAN run well at higher levels, or manage to TEACH them how to do it. Or maybe you're wrong that players want more levels and complexity and higher numbers and the reasons they gravitate to lower than mid-to-high level games is because they genuinely
don't want to be Elminster and Mordenkainen going toe-to-toe with Demon Lords and shaking the pillars of heaven, or else are at least AS satisfied with being just local heroes and don't need to save entire kingdoms, the world, or the multiverse on a regular basis to enjoy D&D.
osrdread.blogspot.com
