D&D General Level 1-20 and the gulf between aspirations and reality

[pogre]

One benefit of the inspirational aspect of higher level play for my group is a greater investment in their PCs. If you are always starting campaigns that typically fizzle out at lower levels it leads to a throw away attitude for my players. They take foolish risks and are fatalistic in their attitudes and actions.

Not a universal table situation by any means, but just part of my local experience.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think part of it is also that groups that play to 20 with regularity will get through far fewer campaigns overall. One of the campaigns I'm currently running has been going almost two years (the party is around level 18). In that time I could have easily run a dozen short campaigns.

So I do think that the sort of groups who play to 20th exist, albeit probably in the minority. Counting the number of campaigns that go to 20 isn't going to give you an accurate picture of that sort of thing. You'd need to compare the overall time invested into shorter campaigns vs longer campaigns, which I don't think anyone has done.

 

[Aldarc]

One benefit of the inspirational aspect of higher level play for my group is a greater investment in their PCs. If you are always starting campaigns that typically fizzle out at lower levels it leads to a throw away attitude for my players. They take foolish risks and are fatalistic in their attitudes and actions.

Not a universal table situation by any means, but just part of my local experience.

But can't aspirational play exist at all levels? Does a 1st level character not aspire to 2nd level or 8th level? 20 is kinda an arbitrary number when it comes to aspiring to a level that is "gatekept" by either XP or some ambiguous goalpost milestone level.

 

[pogre]

But can't aspirational play exist at all levels? Does a 1st level character not aspire to 2nd level or 8th level? 20 is kinda an arbitrary number when it comes to aspiring to a level that is "gatekept" by either XP or some ambiguous goalpost milestone level.

Sure. For us I guess going to 20th level is a reflection of the length of the campaign. My players enjoy leveling - compared to most around here we level quickly. My 1st - 20th level campaign took a year and a quarter playing weekly for between 4 and 5 hours with only two missed sessions. The game's level progression naturally slows in the sweet spot of 2nd tier and lower 3rd tier - so it works for us.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure. For us I guess going to 20th level is a reflection of the length of the campaign. My players enjoy leveling - compared to most around here we level quickly. My 1st - 20th level campaign took a year and a quarter playing weekly for between 4 and 5 hours with only two missed sessions. The game's level progression naturally slows in the sweet spot of 2nd tier and lower 3rd tier - so it works for us.

So why not design the game around thirty levels? How about forty levels? Why have spells be every odd level? Why not have ten spell levels that are spread across ten levels? That seems easier to understand for newcomers.

I likely betrayed my bias in my earlier post. I lean more towards ten levels. You can get a good campaign in that amount of time. And if you got the SotDL route and just have every completed adventure be a level, then that's 9-10 adventures in that time, especially since level 10 is meant to represent BBEGs like the Demon Lord. Then you can roll up new characters and go through the process again.

But I also understand that the preference for you and your group is twenty levels and by no means do I want you to believe that I am discounting it. People obviously have different preferences here and I don't think that this is the sort of preference that has a right answer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So why not design the game around thirty levels? How about forty levels?

Or just open-ended. Indeed, why have levels at all?

I think, d20 has 20 levels, because symmetry, makes about as much sense as D&D has 20 levels because 2e had 20-level tables. That is, it's arbitrary, and doesn't really matter. (What might be said to matter, if, indeed, anything about mechanics does, is what the presented level range covers, the whole '0 to hero' thing, with the understanding that 'hero' isn't the same for every class, and that the fighter's gonna be linear and the full-casters quadratic, or else edition warring, of course.)

Why have spells be every odd level? Why not have ten spell levels that are spread across ten levels? That seems easier to understand for newcomers.

It would be. Much. But it wouldn't be familiar enough to the old-timers, who would therefore view it as "too complicated for new players," and tell them so, all over the internet.

I likely betrayed my bias in my earlier post. I lean more towards ten levels.

13A went with that, it is more intuitive. And, it covers about the same tiers as 5e, in concept, and your character grow more by the numbers, since it's also using the more intuitive +1/1 leveling bonus, rather than 5e's 2+(level/5) or 4e's level/2.

 

[Stalker0]

I would argue that most campaigns SHOULD stop before they hit those high levels. High level DND is a different beast, and not just mechanically but narratively as well.

When your 20th level, saving the world is literally the thing you do before lunch. Most campaigns don't need to go to that level of extreme....they find a reasonable end point long before that.

Personally I think 20th level is more for daydreaming than actual play. I have definitely sat around and thought of my favorite characters and what they would look like when they got to 20th level. That can be a fun aspect of the Dnd experience, even if its not an actual play experience. I also think high level stuff is more for Dms than players. While a player may never get to cast a 9th level spell, the final boss they fight just might...and so its the resources for DMs to have that.

So for that alone, maintaining high level resources makes sense for the game. But I would argue that the design teams should not spend a lot of time focused on those levels. Further, we on these boards really should stop looking at 15-20th level for any kind of balance discussion. A lot of discussions on these boards are like "well the class really breaks down at 15th level". And the main retort to that is....honestly it doesn't really matter.

 

[Haffrung]

I do like Shadow of the Demon Lord's structure, leveling, and adventure design. The ten levels are broken up into three tiers of play. Adventures are designed for a particular tier. Leveling happens upon the completion of an adventure, and you can mix and match adventures to work up towards 10th level.

And each session is a level. So the default assumption is a 10 session, 10-level campaign. I think Schwalb's estimate of what a manageable campaign looks like is pretty bang-on.

 

[generic]

I would argue that most campaigns SHOULD stop before they hit those high levels. High level DND is a different beast, and not just mechanically but narratively as well.

When your 20th level, saving the world is literally the thing you do before lunch. Most campaigns don't need to go to that level of extreme....they find a reasonable end point long before that.

Personally I think 20th level is more for daydreaming than actual play. I have definitely sat around and thought of my favorite characters and what they would look like when they got to 20th level. That can be a fun aspect of the Dnd experience, even if its not an actual play experience. I also think high level stuff is more for Dms than players. While a player may never get to cast a 9th level spell, the final boss they fight just might...and so its the resources for DMs to have that.

So for that alone, maintaining high level resources makes sense for the game. But I would argue that the design teams should not spend a lot of time focused on those levels. Further, we on these boards really should stop looking at 15-20th level for any kind of balance discussion. A lot of discussions on these boards are like "well the class really breaks down at 15th level". And the main retort to that is....honestly it doesn't really matter.

It does depend on the campaign in question.

Perhaps, in some poster's campaigns, 20th level is less "you can save the world every day", and more "it's time to save the world. That seems to be how the 5E DMG defines it. At tier three, the DMG says that players should expect to save regions, not the world entire.

However, in most campaigns, it is possible, and, often, narrative-appropriate, to save the world around 15th level.

 

[Aldarc]

I think, d20 has 20 levels, because symmetry, makes about as much sense as D&D has 20 levels because 2e had 20-level tables. That is, it's arbitrary, and doesn't really matter.

I saw your earlier explanation to Umbran, and it does make sense. "It's like poetry, because it rhymes."

It would be. Much. But it wouldn't be familiar enough to the old-timers, who would therefore view it as "too complicated for new players," and tell them so, all over the internet.

"What do you mean that I get Fireball at 3rd level instead of 5th?! That makes no logical sense! /nerdragequit"

13A went with that, it is more intuitive. And, it covers about the same tiers as 5e, in concept, and your character grow more by the numbers, since it's also using the more intuitive +1/1 leveling bonus, rather than 5e's 2+(level/5) or 4e's level/2.

Tradition often overrides what makes for a more intuitive or elegantly designed modern game.