D&D General Why does D&D still have 16th to 20th level?

[Flamestrike]

As a player, you know when your DM has reached that point of 'Holy naughty word, I dont know what I'm doing anymore' that usually proceeds the DM rage quit' campaign ending.

Its when those Antimagic fields pop up everywhere.

We've all been there.

To all you DMs out there - don't do this. Just keep going, and learn. The first few times will be absolute train wrecks, but that's OK. Learn from them, and after a few goes at it, you'll know all the tricks and will be able to factor them into your planning.

 

[Malmuria]

The only reason we don't get to do this more often is because so many DMs dont know how to run high level games (and to be fair to them, it is time consuming, and a labor of love that requires a lot of experience and skill).

If epic play was a core part of dnd it shouldn't rely on dm experience and skill so much. There's not a lot of support for this kind of play. I don't mean just modules; the game as a whole is geared toward non-epic play. There's nothing to teach DMs, aside from time consuming experience, how to run these games. The monster manual does not provide interesting threats that take into account high level PC abilities, and it's very possible that not a lot of thought was put into how the game would actually play at tier 4. So from levels 15+ the game is pretty much saying, "you're on your own, good luck," leading dms to give up and the group to start over at level 1. If that's the case, why include those levels in the phb?

The design aspect of this problem is quite distinct from the fiction. Monster's are just statistics that are scaled up or down, so there's no reason you couldn't fight a demon lord at level 12, as the final fight of your campaign.

 

[Flamestrike]

If epic play was a core part of dnd it shouldn't rely on dm experience and skill so much.

That's plainly not the case.

The skills and abilities (and complexities) of a 1st level PC and a CR 1 monster are vastly different to that of a 20th level PC decked out in artifacts, and monsters that could seek to threaten such a PC.

Most DMs have experience with T1. They know common abilities and tricks used at that level of play.

Most DMs have little experience with high level play, due to having quit at mid levels when some 'new' ability came online and wrecked their games (because they had no experience with that ability before).

You need experience to be a good DM (or to be good at anything really). That includes making mistakes, because that's the best way to learn.

Even 'newb' DMs screw up low level play. But they learn from it, and in time get better.

 

[Maxperson]

If epic play was a core part of dnd it shouldn't rely on dm experience and skill so much. There's not a lot of support for this kind of play. I don't mean just modules; the game as a whole is geared toward non-epic play. There's nothing to teach DMs, aside from time consuming experience, how to run these games. The monster manual does not provide interesting threats that take into account high level PC abilities, and it's very possible that not a lot of thought was put into how the game would actually play at tier 4. So from levels 15+ the game is pretty much saying, "you're on your own, good luck," leading dms to give up and the group to start over at level 1. If that's the case, why include those levels in the phb?

The design aspect of this problem is quite distinct from the fiction. Monster's are just statistics that are scaled up or down, so there's no reason you couldn't fight a demon lord at level 12, as the final fight of your campaign.

The game really can't do a whole lot. The more abilities you have available and the greater their power, the more options you have. At high levels there is just so much to consider and so many ways things can go, experience is really the best way to learn how to run it. You can get a bit of advice, but it's no substitute for the experience of running it.

It seems like a lot of DMs might be afraid of high levels and so they avoid it, but if they just dove in and tried it, they would master it just like they did when they first started DMing.

 

[Jaeger]

The point is, if it is true that most groups don't use the 11-20 material, then it is a waste of space including it in the PHB. For example, groups who play official modules and start a new campaign when those are over aren't really using a lot of the 10+ or 12+ material. It would be better to focus the phb around a level 1-10 or 1-12 experience (however you want to cut it up). Those players and dms who do want high levels could, in turn, probably use a book focused on gameplay at those levels, including options for customization.

Granted, maybe plenty of groups get past level 12 and want all that info in one place.

Re: "...most groups don't use the 11-20 material..."
Based in my own anecdotal experience + WOTC claims, I tend to believe that this is true. And I think that it has been true for some time in the hobby.

One just needs to see the number of adventure paths and modules published during WOTC's ownership of D&D. Just look how many are focused on levels 1-10 as opposed to high level play... So while it is evident from the replies to this thread that some do enjoy high level play, the amount of people who regularly do high level play is still just a subset of the larger player base.

Tradition is just as good a reason as any why 1-20ish play hasn't changed in D&D.

IMHO if it was any other game but D&D, the move would be to acknowledge that for most people there is a "sweet spot" in play for D&D.

So just design for that sweet spot. Have 1-20 levels but set them so that the game prolongs what 'tier' of play most find most desirable rather than move people into a different genre every 5 levels. The E6 mod for 3.5 is a great example of this.

Were WOTC to have made 5e following the E6 model, they would have neatly side stepped many of the issues faced with producing 'high level' material, and still kept the majority of the player base happy.

But that would have been big risk a post 4e, and there was no way the 5e Developers were going to take it.

 

[Reynard]

So just design for that sweet spot. Have 1-20 levels but set them so that the game prolongs what 'tier' of play most find most desirable rather than move people into a different genre every 5 levels. The E6 mod for 3.5 is a great example of this.

I can't speak for anyone else, but:

YUCK.

The game SHOULD change over the course of a campaign and the level ranges of the PCs. If you just like 4th to 9th, why should I be denied the whole breadth of the experience so you can play the same game over and over again?

 

[Malmuria]

I can't speak for anyone else, but:

YUCK.

The game SHOULD change over the course of a campaign and the level ranges of the PCs. If you just like 4th to 9th, why should I be denied the whole breadth of the experience so you can play the same game over and over again?

So does a level 20 limit work for you? Because you could say you are being denied the range of experience offered by levels 21-30, with its theoretical 10th and 11th and 12th level spell slots. At some point you would have to define the core experience of the game and make it work for that experience. The premise of the question is trying to figure out what that core experience is, based on how the game works and what people actually use.

 

[Reynard]

So does a level 20 limit work for you? Because you could say you are being denied the range of experience offered by levels 21-30, with its theoretical 10th and 11th and 12th level spell slots. At some point you would have to define the core experience of the game and make it work for that experience. The premise of the question is trying to figure out what that core experience is, based on how the game works and what people actually use.

I think your base assumption is flawed. There isn't A SINGLE core experience of D&D. There are at least 3: gritty low fantasy (tier 1), cinematic adventure (tier 2 and maybe 3), and high fantasy (tier 3 and 4). On top of that there are other important options, including leadership and domain management and war.

 

[Raith5]

I'll also echo the sentiment that DMs running high level play probably make extensive use of home brew. I know I made a lot of unique monsters for the end of my previous campaign and found most of the published high CR monsters from official sources underpowered compared to the party.

1000% agree. I killed a Demon Lord in Descent into Avernus when I rolled a 9 (and hit AC 18 I think) and I remember thinking that does not feel right. I think we were about 14th level. So I think bounded accuracy needs to be loosened a bit for higher level monsters and I really just get a sense that high level published adventures need to be at least 30% tougher.

 

[Jaeger]

I can't speak for anyone else, but:

YUCK.

The game SHOULD change over the course of a campaign and the level ranges of the PCs. If you just like 4th to 9th, why should I be denied the whole breadth of the experience so you can play the same game over and over again?

You are in luck. WOTC will never ever do an "E6" version of D&D in our lifetime.

Never ever? Never. Ever.

But you are still just playing the same game over and over again with the current 1-20 level paradigm.

Yes, you theoretically get more "powerful", but it is largely an illusion as everything just scales up in power with you.