D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

What if we wrote it all down?

Like on a sheet representing our character?

I'm just musing here, but I would assume it still applies. It's the same reason why you generally shouldn't have more than 3-5 bullet points on a PowerPoint slide. Once you get too many, it all becomes jumbled and blended together and then forgotten.

I think TTRPGs obviously have a little more wriggle room, but I don't know about you, but every other session I hear my players say something like, "Oh! I forgot I had this ability/feat/magic item/spell/doodad".

Edit: (even though it was already written down on a sheet representing their character 😂)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That is not WotC D&D but it pretty much describes TSR era D&D. Fighters just got better at fighting. Thieves got better at thiefing. Even spell casters, who did expand their repetoires, did not gain a bunch of weird and strange abilities. Druids and Monks were probably the most like modern character classes in that regard.

Anyway, there is no reason why a modern 5E game can't contain the number of options as PCs gain levels and rely instead largely on getting better.
You’re right I should say, not modern D&D.

The problem is I think people like getting new abilities. It has pretty much characterized the last 25 years of the game. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this has been a continuous progression of this kind. I’ll even go so far as to say the reason people would want to play high level is because they would get to do new things. Otherwise it’s all just maths and relativity right?

Are we also honestly saying that people can’t remember their skills? We have character sheets. We have D&D beyond. We have books. Combat while fast isn’t that fast - you get 2-6 other peoples go before it comes round to you again. I see characters die at high levels and their replacement PCs don’t seem to be a big struggle when playing the abilities of the character.

Anecdotal but it feels like this is a solution looking for a problem.
 
Last edited:

I'm just musing here, but I would assume it still applies. It's the same reason why you generally shouldn't have more than 3-5 bullet points on a PowerPoint slide. Once you get too many, it all becomes jumbled and blended together and then forgotten.

I think TTRPGs obviously have a little more wriggle room, but I don't know about you, but every other session I hear my players say something like, "Oh! I forgot I had this ability/feat/magic item/spell/doodad".

Edit: (even though it was already written down on a sheet representing their character 😂)
and people forget they had their pocket knife in thier pocket and wash it. So.....that's just being human. If the players never forgot anything it would be a very boring game.
 

and people forget they had their pocket knife in thier pocket and wash it. So.....that's just being human. If the players never forgot anything it would be a very boring game.
I don't know if what makes a game exciting is that people forget things about it (but I get what you're saying).

I originally only posted my experience as an adult educator (regarding Miller's Law). I was originally responding to a user questioning why a different user suggested only having 10 abilities in their hypothetical TTRPG. Specifically in that "science" supports that methodology.

It's also okay that our favorite games don't do that 😂
 

Not the OP, but coming from an adult education perspective, the suggested number of things that an adult can remember at one time is 7, + or - 2. It's called Miller's Law.

Basically the number of things an adult can keep in Short Term memory.
I love that you brought this up! I’ve heard a similar thing from a friend involved in healthcare surveying - they aim for presenting no more than five options for each question, as beyond that patients’ ability to differentiate the options start to fall off.

I think for RPGs there’s a player - GM distinction that can be made broadly that players have a higher threshold for PC complexity/options, while GMs have a lower threshold (due to the many hats / many monsters).

But it’s good to remember that the general principle of “having too many options to distinguish / remember” is a human quality. And players are humans too (despite me having my doubts after what they did to that one kobold ;) ).

And you can kinda already see this in 5e’s attunement rules - while the design intent is to prevent magic item abuse by sharing it across party members and, secondarily, to model narrative weight / major rules impact… another effect is (partially) limiting the magic item palette (“kit” in gaming parlance) of each PC.

I think there’s something to be gained by allowing decisions about what your current kit will look like before or after sessions, while limiting the kit to 4-9 options during the game itself.
 

wow magic item abuse if you share it across the party. I'd love to try that in a scifi game with blasters and gadgets...LOL Very DM vs player mindset..
 

wow magic item abuse if you share it across the party. I'd love to try that in a scifi game with blasters and gadgets...LOL Very DM vs player mindset..
Don’t shoot the messenger! I was paraphrasing from WotC design interviews, not espousing my own GMing philosophy.

This is an example of signal getting lost in noise - this happens a lot on the forums when we jump the gun on our responses.

The SIGNAL - the important part - is how this framework (attunement) provides an example implementation of how to address Miller’s Law (problems re. glut of options).

The noise is thinking I’m making a judgment statement about attunement and then derailing the conversation.

Focus on SIGNAL, not noise.
 

For me, a main reason that we don't do super high level games is aesthetic. As a DM, I like my stories to be really grounded, and I like the stakes to be local, not world-threatening dangers. So I prefer running games between about levels 1-7. High level games tend to be almost like superhero stories, and while I enjoy those in the right context, I don't enjoy them as RP.
 
Last edited:

That's exciting! Nearing the home stretch of your high-level campaign!
Thanks, I'm both excited for the finale and am also looking forward to starting a new campaign.
Do you have an anecdote you could share about the kind of tinkering / prep you end up doing to run high-level combat or challenges (doesn't have to be combat necessarily)?

Don't fall into the more HP trap. Maybe it'll keep some enemies in combat for a round or two extra, but at this level, PCs can deal extreme damage and more HP doesn't do much to make combat more interesting.

For example, say you are fighting Orcus and he uses his wand to summon 500 HP of undead. Rather than one or two undead dragons, it will be much more scary and fun combat to bring in a lot of glass canon undead with a variety of special attacks. Think alips, ghosts, haints, poltergeists, maybe throw in both a demilich and some flame skulls. Which floating head is the demilich? In this example, I actually LOWER the HP of the individual minions so I can bring more of them in. The action economy starts to make things scary, I only allow one arcana check per turn so they are going to have to start combat without knowing what everything is (I don't tell them what the things are, only that they see various spirits and floating skulls). It forces meaningful strategic choices, especially with things that have high mobility, can go ethereal, are incorporeal, melt/hide in shadows, etc.

While I will still use things like banishment, paralysis, etc., I much prefer charm magic, possession, etc. Where the player can still play, against the other players. Having multiple enemies in the battle that can do these things are still scary, even at high levels. A score of ghosts can be more scary than a lich.

You pretty much have to go with high-level magic enemies, traps, and puzzles at this level. Lots of ways to prevent planar travel, teleportation, etc. Also, I don't have a problem with lair effects and protections that a PC couldn't do using RAW. It is fair because PCs (at least in my group) have lots of divination and other resources to learn about what they may be getting into. My players are the type that will spend a crazy amount of time on magical and mundane intel gathering and have a great many resources with which to accomplish this, so I don't feel that I have to pull any punches here. Other groups of players not used to my DMing style, or who find prep boring, might have problems with this.

I probably spend more time than necessary thinking about the cosmological order in my campaign. Not only because I enjoy it and because it helps with adjudicating the wish spell. I'm not great at improvising the wish spell on the spot, so it helps to have some heuristics or a sense of how it would work or not work in my world. This allows me to fairly adjudicate wishes without being arbitrary and puts the power into the players hands to research and divinate on how certain wishes could play out. I keep what they learn somewhat vague so there is still room for surprises, but I've been able to avoid players feeling like they've wasted a wish.

In my current campaign, which is focused on a specific area and is not a planes jumping, universe spanning campaign, it helps to have something that grounds the party to the area and makes them care. I use a homebrew system that mixes rules from Strongholds and Followers, rules for reputations from an old EN5ider article, and a mix of PHP, DMG, and Xanathar's downtime activity. The cleric has started a new religious order, the party has built up their various strongholds into a growing town, and there are various factional politics that can help and hinder the party in meeting their goals.

Also, in this campaign, I take a somewhat adversarial role. Not really in that I want to win, but my bad guys do and I will try to kill the PCs. In low levels, that played out mostly through a sandboxy and deadly environment where incaution could easily lead to death. At high levels, however, it means the bad guys see the PCs as an existential threat and will do anything within their power to take them out. Since they are grounded to the area, have a lot of people and goals they want to protect, and are actually NOT gods and can't be everywhere at once, it makes factional politics much more important and strategically building up troops, followers, and other protections to safeguard their interests and the people they care about.

They have always had the option to just move on to some other area and take the campaign in whatever direction they wanted (I have a crazy amount of Lost Lands material) but they've come to care enough about cleansing Rappan Athuk, bringing civilization to the Forest of Hope, and supporting their allies that they never did.

This relates to the earlier discussion about the additive complexity that occurs in 5e at higher levels – the context was player abilities, but it applies equally to the standard 5e monster design where higher challenge monsters tend to have increasingly bloated stat blocks with more complex implicit strategies.

Yeah, and it often isn't that fun. Often it is getting to the BBEG that is more of a challenge and more fun than the actual final encounter. In a long campaign, not every encounter with a big bad has to be epic. It is cathartic to wipe the floor with bad guys after you finally find and get to them. I've learned to focus on a few set piece, epic battles, and am less worried about every combat being a challenge. It is important to make the exploration and social pillars of play still matter at high levels.

I wonder how much a GM or Adventure Writer could "play it where it lies" with 5e, and just tweak things behind the screen (monster design, challenge design, rules unique to the setting/adventure) to mitigate issues related to high-level play, such as the strain on the GM managing vast array of monster abilities/spells/tactics.
Yeah, I think that is what is needed. A high level adventure should include a lot of advice for GMs on how to adjust the adventure for different play styles and powers. It would make it more wordy, but it would help more DMs get over their anxiety of running high level adventures.
 

I'm just musing here, but I would assume it still applies. It's the same reason why you generally shouldn't have more than 3-5 bullet points on a PowerPoint slide. Once you get too many, it all becomes jumbled and blended together and then forgotten.

I think TTRPGs obviously have a little more wriggle room, but I don't know about you, but every other session I hear my players say something like, "Oh! I forgot I had this ability/feat/magic item/spell/doodad".

In my games it is more common to hear me as the GM say "oh, sh*t, I forgot you [had/could do] that!" :-)

Edit: (even though it was already written down on a sheet representing their character 😂)
The problem for the GM is that you have complicated character sheets for each PC, plus increasingly complicated enemies and environmental effects. I've read GMs saying that they will run no/low prep games at high levels, but I just don't have the brain for it. At higher levels, I have to spend a lot more time in prep.
 

Remove ads

Top