D&D 5E At what level does play become "high level"?

[Asisreo]

Question: Do you believe D&D Beyond is providing false information or do you believe that D&D Beyond is not representative of the larger D&D community or something else?

EDIT: Here are two news articles on the subject
Nobody is playing High Level Characters
90% of D&D Games Stop by Level 10

There's some problems with these statistics. I believe the data is making a jump to its conclusion.

Just because the website has more lower level characters than higher level characters doesn't mean even the majority of players don't play high level.

It's simply possible that players have put several characters on reserve for when a new campaign starts rather than all characters on a site are actively playing.

I have 6 characters on D&DBeyond. 1 of them is a current character at level 15. 3 of them are reserve characters that I want to try playing (one is level 1 and the other two are level 5). And 2 of them are on hiatus but considered "in a campaign."

100% of the characters I'm playing at the moment in D&DBeyond are level 15+, but if the data is based on just how many characters are on my account, only 16% of my characters are 15+. If you were to count how many are "in a campaign," a resounding 0% of characters that I play are level 6+, even though my current campaign is high level.

Be wary of statistics and what they are interpreted as. Data is data but don't let others lead you into conclusions. Its usually better to just read the RAW data and take it as it is.

 

[Maxperson]

Interesting. Follow up:

1. We don't really know how D&D Beyond relates to the overall player base, but WotC also says their data suggest high level is less well traveled. Do you have information that suggests otherwise. Personally, as a person you loves epic, high, & ultra-high level play, I have never had a campaign go 1-20 to epic. We always play an adventure or two at high level to try it out, but most of our campaigns end around lvl 10 (even in 4e).

I believe that high level is less travelled. As I mentioned, my personal experience involves high level being common after 2e. I've also been to many conventions and peeked in on games being played in the common areas. Most of them were lower level(below 10th). A good number were high level, though.

1. How much do you think the D&D Beyond data is different from the whole player baes? If D&D Beyond says 90% of campaigns stop at about 10th level, what do you think the % is for the whole player base? Personally, I have had one campaign go past 11th level (my current one) in about 35 years of gaming. However, since we advance at a slow pace, I think that is closer 15% of our games getting past 10th level.

I think the vast majority of players do not use D&D beyond or any online platform. Just like the players who go and debate on forums is not representative of players as a whole, neither are the ones who use D&D Beyond. I have no idea what the percentage of gamers is that use that platform, but I'd bet it's pretty low. I think that the percentage of groups who goes higher than 10th level is probably 20%.........maaaaaaaybe 25%. Still nowhere near a majority, but definitely a very significant minority.

1. So a part of believes D&D Beyond is lying about their data? For what purpose I wonder?

The same reason every other corporation does it. To make it seem like their choices are good and/or to get you to buy what they are selling you. That they lie isn't in doubt. I don't know how much they lie, but given my experiences over many years and a wide variety of people, social groups and settings, and editions, I don't think 10% is accurate.

1. Another part of you believes how they collect or present data is misleading. What is your issue the presentation / collection of the data?

So D&D Beyond wants people to pay for all of their books a second time while using their platform. Lots of people don't want to do that. I'm certainly not going to and I can easily afford it. Groups of students, younger people and those others of lower means definitely aren't going to want to pay for books a second time AND also for the ongoing service.

The free version of D&D Beyond only offers up one or two subclasses per class and like one single crappy feat. All of the free users seem to be included in their numbers and I know that if I made a free PC, I'd quit in a few levels and just use a sheet offline, since there's stuff that D&D Beyond won't give me access to and I don't need that frustration. I think a lot of free users are quitting before they reach the upper levels and a good many are probably continuing on past 10th. The free version skews the numbers and WotC has to know it.

 

[dave2008]

I believe that high level is less travelled. As I mentioned, my personal experience involves high level being common after 2e. I've also been to many conventions and peeked in on games being played in the common areas. Most of them were lower level(below 10th). A good number were high level, though.

Ok, so you don't have any more data. I was just curious if your opinion was based on anything besides casual observation.

I think the vast majority of players do not use D&D beyond or any online platform. Just like the players who go and debate on forums is not representative of players as a whole, neither are the ones who use D&D Beyond. I have no idea what the percentage of gamers is that use that platform, but I'd bet it's pretty low. I think that the percentage of groups who goes higher than 10th level is probably 20%.........maaaaaaaybe 25%. Still nowhere near a majority, but definitely a very significant minority.

I basically agree and a few years ago would have agreed whole-heartedly. Now, with so many new, younger gamers jumping on board I don't know. I have a D&D Beyond account and have bought some books, but no one in my groups uses it when we play and I am the only one that uses it at all. However, I think my experiences with D&D are becoming less and less the norm.

The same reason every other corporation does it. To make it seem like their choices are good and/or to get you to buy what they are selling you. That they lie isn't in doubt. I don't know how much they lie, but given my experiences over many years and a wide variety of people, social groups and settings, and editions, I don't think 10% is accurate.

10% can be inaccurate and not be lie. I also don't see what D&D Beyond gains by saying what % of games go whatever level. They are not WotC, they are not trying to push a narrative (not that I think WotC is trying to push this idea either). Also, not all corporations lie. I know, I have owned some (very small corporations, but still corporations)

The free version of D&D Beyond only offers up one or two subclasses per class and like one single crappy feat. All of the free users seem to be included in their numbers and I know that if I made a free PC, I'd quit in a few levels and just use a sheet offline, since there's stuff that D&D Beyond won't give me access to and I don't need that frustration. I think a lot of free users are quitting before they reach the upper levels and a good many are probably continuing on past 10th. The free version skews the numbers and WotC has to know it.

Is that a slip? I know you know WotC doesn't own D&D Beyond.

 

[dave2008]

There's some problems with these statistics. I believe the data is making a jump to its conclusion.

Just because the website has more lower level characters than higher level characters doesn't mean even the majority of players don't play high level.

It's simply possible that players have put several characters on reserve for when a new campaign starts rather than all characters on a site are actively playing.

I have 6 characters on D&DBeyond. 1 of them is a current character at level 15. 3 of them are reserve characters that I want to try playing (one is level 1 and the other two are level 5). And 2 of them are on hiatus but considered "in a campaign."

100% of the characters I'm playing at the moment in D&DBeyond are level 15+, but if the data is based on just how many characters are on my account, only 16% of my characters are 15+. If you were to count how many are "in a campaign," a resounding 0% of characters that I play are level 6+, even though my current campaign is high level.

Be wary of statistics and what they are interpreted as. Data is data but don't let others lead you into conclusions. Its usually better to just read the RAW data and take it as it is.

It is also possible that you are making a jump in your conclusions. It has been a while since I looked at those threads, but I recall they do use some method to determine if a character is being played (as opposed to being stock-piled). Whether their method is good or not, I have no idea. And honestly I just don't care, the % of high level games as 0 effect on my games and my enjoyment of D&D.

It seems to me the people see what they want to see in the statements of others.

 

[Ancalagon]

9th can't be high level, though. It's literally in the middle of the level range, making it mid level.

The game says level 1-20. But that's not where most people play. Level 9 is high level. Several surveys show that most campaigns end much before level 20.

 

[Maxperson]

The game says level 1-20. But that's not where most people play. Level 9 is high level. Several surveys show that most campaigns end much before level 20.

Sure, but that just means that most don't play to high level. It doesn't alter what is high level for the game.

 

[Azzy]

Coming infrom older editions, high-level player, for me, started at "name" level (typically 9th level for many classes). If I were to adjust my thoughts to 5e in particular, I'd say the start of tier 3 (11th level).

 

[Azzy]

For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, WotC and Paizo at some point decided that the max level should be far, far higher than most groups ever reach. Content for play beyond 12th level is largely theoretical.

Actually, it was TSR that started it. With OD&D and 1e AD&D, there was theoretically no upper limit on levels. The Holmes "Basic" D&D was intended to be an onramp to AD&D and onlly had 3 levels (expecting you to contine on with AD&D). B/X had intended to extend play beyond the Expert set, but that never manifested so it's unknown at what level (if any) it would capped at. BECMI capped at 36th level (and then you could go on to play immortals). Dragonlance, for 1e, gave a hard cap of 18th level for character in that setting. 2e initially capped at 20th level, but the later DM's Option: High-Level Campaigns extended it to 30th level. So, WotC was following the precedent set in the 2e PHB for levels maxing at 20th level (then there was the Epic Level Handbook, but that best mostly forgotten).

Sorry for the pedantry.

 

[Azzy]

Heh, in my own personal experience, I could count the number of times a campaign I've been part of that has lasted beyond 10th level one hand. Once in 1.5e (an admixture of 1e and 2e) where we got to 17th level or so, another in 3e (actually getting into epic levels), and three in 5e (none past 15th level, though). I've also played in an epic-level 3.5e campaign, but that started at 20th level and proceded from there so it doesn't really count.

 

[Ancalagon]

Sure, but that just means that most don't play to high level. It doesn't alter what is high level for the game.

Of course it does. If a new book comes out that extend the game to level 40, is level 20 now mid level?