D&D 5E Why Do Higher Levels Get Less Play?

[pemerton]

Lifting, dragging, and throwing weight and size is what hulks bringing in and out of combat.

There are ways to do this in a RPG without complicated encumbrance rules.

 

[Minigiant]

There are ways to do this in a RPG without complicated encumbrance rules.

There is.

But not in D&D because in D&D, Strength is closeness to reality and has a long tradition. Thus needs specific rules defining Hulkness.

If you say, "I'm 24 STR. I tie a the rope ladder to the boulder, pick it up, and throw it across the gap to complete the bridge " some DMs will say yes, others no.

So you need

1. How big an object you can throw
2. How heavy an object you can throw
3. How large an object you can lift over your head
4. How heavy an object you can lift over your head
5. How far you can jump
6. How high you can jump

etc etc

Instead of a simpler RPG game could say "You are as strong as a giant and can lift and do the same actions as one would assume a giant can."

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's an alternative reading, which is that certain sorts of "stories" are level-dependent. For instance, meeting a Pit Fiend as an equal, or carving out a kingdom to rule, or travelling places by way of teleportation - on my understanding of D&D (informed primarily by B/X, AD&D and 4e D&D), these are not things that can occur at any level.

I dunno... it really isn't hard to down-power a pit fiend so that a party can face off against it at like level 8, nor difficult to let 10th level characters run kingdoms if that's what the campaign theme is about. And teleportation? Misty Step is done by starting characters, Teleportation Circles can be used by any level of character and cast by 9th level ones, and even regular Teleport only needs 13th level... and this doesn't even include the idea of NPCs willing to 'port the PCs to various locations at whatever level the party happens to be. DMs and players will run and play any scenario they want at whatever level they want if it means they get to experience it when they want to.

I mean the fact that what has always been the de facto primary "high-level activity"... going to the Outer Planes... has been done in an adventure book for characters Level 1 to 13... tells us that nothing is off-limits or level-barriered. There's no level requirements. Sure, it might seem more fun for certain players to face off against Ancient Wyrm level dragons or the fully-statted archdemons (rather than depowered versions)... so for them playing at high-level is worth it. But I just don't think those barriers matter to most other people. Seems like most would rather fight "pit fiends" at level 8 then to wait until the DM finally gets the campaign up to level 17, and I would venture an opinion that most DMs and players if given a choice would rather play two of different styles and characters in campaigns that go from 1-10 then one campaign of equal time from 1-20. But YMMV.

 

[tetrasodium]

Regardless of if a well designed encumbrance system can be done in d&d without invoking Barbie: "math is hard", what 5.0 & 5.5 gave us is just that. It's on the shoulders of those pushing for simplicity to explain such a system and describe its merits to d&d gameplay. Shaking a finger at a more involved system while banging the drum of simplicity to claim it could be done without complexity does nothing but ask for others to invent or borrow the best simple method & cover the merits for those who are effectively opting out of any encumbrance system while maintaining the option to say "but not like that" like Cartman in the pander
verse might

 

[Zardnaar]

Regardless of if a well designed encumbrance system can be done in d&d without invoking Barbie: "math is hard", what 5.0 & 5.5 gave us is just that. It's on the shoulders of those pushing for simplicity to explain such a system and describe its merits to d&d gameplay. Shaking a finger at a more involved system while banging the drum of simplicity to claim it could be done without complexity does nothing but ask for others to invent or borrow the best simple method & cover the merits for those who are effectively opting out of any encumbrance system while maintaining the option to say "but not like that" like Cartman in the pander
verse might

Not really peopke like what they like. They don't have to justify it.

Up to you if you want to buy the product or not.

 

[bloodtide]

There's an alternative reading, which is that certain sorts of "stories" are level-dependent. For instance, meeting a Pit Fiend as an equal, or carving out a kingdom to rule, or travelling places by way of teleportation - on my understanding of D&D (informed primarily by B/X, AD&D and 4e D&D), these are not things that can occur at any level.

I encounter this all the time and do wonder why so many gamers think this way. Take a human or an orc and most gamers can understand the concept that they can be a challenge power level of 1-20. But for many others they get stuck on "the creature must be exactly as page 11 says always".

But Why?

Why do so many gamers have a problem even thinking of a 'weak' Pit Fiend? Or a 'more powerful' Pit Fiend? Any random orc might have a club OR a Sword of Death, and that is just fine as an orc can be of any power level. But Pit Fiends must be by the book. Most encounter rules even have rules for making creatures weaker or more powerful: but so many act like those rules don't exist.

As a DM I know I can drive many players nutty by having orcs with nets, poison darts or even guns. And because "page 11" of the "official rules" does not say "orcs can use poison darts", many players will whine and complain or even leave the game.

And my view - tentative, but based on a fair bit of observation of how people talk about their play, and how TSR/WotC present high level play - is that a big problem is that there is a reluctance to allow the sorts of stakes (and associated themes) that are central to epic/mythic fantasy as a part of D&D play. And of course, high level play that is merely a continuation of fetch quests, looting dungeons, and the like won't offer anything that low level play doesn't.

This is very much true of modern D&D, even more so 5E. Modern D&D otters nothing 'epic' to high level players. AD&D 2E and a bit of 3E did offer some spots of 'epic'. But BECMI is the only D&D that from zero to god. Once you got to high level in BECMI, your character was doing epic legendary things...changing the political landscape, doing near impossible tasks, fighting gods, and then becoming a god yourself.

 

[MGibster]

Why do so many gamers have a problem even thinking of a 'weak' Pit Fiend? Or a 'more powerful' Pit Fiend? Any random orc might have a club OR a Sword of Death, and that is just fine as an orc can be of any power level. But Pit Fiends must be by the book. Most encounter rules even have rules for making creatures weaker or more powerful: but so many act like those rules don't exist.

I don't know. There's more than one published D&D adventure featuring a weakened creature and a little side bar saying something like "Its CR is 3 instead of 5 because of its weakened condition."

 

[tetrasodium]

Not really peopke like what they like. They don't have to justify it.

Up to you if you want to buy the product or not.

That bold bit cuts both ways, but this is a discussion about why higher levels get less play not purchasing considerations.

The post wasn't about what people like and neither was the tangent discussing how the encumbrance rules are insufficient in specific ways that make high level play more difficult to run with somewhat hollow results. The post wasn't about needing to justify their preference, it was about how the failure to do so results in a position that begs those with a different one to craft the position for the poster who didn't do so but is still holding back a ¢"but not like that" & "no I like it for this different reason".

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I encounter this all the time and do wonder why so many gamers think this way. Take a human or an orc and most gamers can understand the concept that they can be a challenge power level of 1-20. But for many others they get stuck on "the creature must be exactly as page 11 says always".

But Why?

Why do so many gamers have a problem even thinking of a 'weak' Pit Fiend? Or a 'more powerful' Pit Fiend? Any random orc might have a club OR a Sword of Death, and that is just fine as an orc can be of any power level. But Pit Fiends must be by the book. Most encounter rules even have rules for making creatures weaker or more powerful: but so many act like those rules don't exist.

As a DM I know I can drive many players nutty by having orcs with nets, poison darts or even guns. And because "page 11" of the "official rules" does not say "orcs can use poison darts", many players will whine and complain or even leave the game.

Short explanation, if D&D is monopoly than Pit Fiends are only at one CR.

That's an odd way to think of it. But this comes back to how you view the game and the DM's power to change that game. If you view it from a perspective similar to a board game, the DM is merely a player. A player should have to follow the rules. The statblocks are the printed rules.

It's not hard to see that logic. DMs and their broad latitude to influence the game has few analogues in other games and hobbies. In monopoly, all games play more or less the same. The banker has no power to alter prices, for example. In D&D, the DM can have an outsized impact on the rules. Two games, both using 5e, can play wildly different.

For humanoids it's different, and it's different because they adhere to the player creation rules in this case. You can build, within the rules, a orc that is level 20. As long as it's numbers line up with the player character creation rules in the PHB, you are still abiding by the rules. You are still playing the same game.

This is all a different perspective on the game. I, personally, value a good DM far more than I value my preferred system. I believe more than 90% of the issues people express with any system are actually symptoms of poor or incompatible DMs. But there are people on these forums that view it very differently, that the DM has no power outside the rules and that the system should play the same in all instances of that system's use, regardless of DM. In the latter instance, you likely find that Pit Fiends have only one CR.

But that's just my thoery on it.

 

[Zardnaar]

That bold bit cuts both ways, but this is a discussion about why higher levels get less play not purchasing considerations.

The post wasn't about what people like and neither was the tangent discussing how the encumbrance rules are insufficient in specific ways that make high level play more difficult to run with somewhat hollow results. The post wasn't about needing to justify their preference, it was about how the failure to do so results in a position that begs those with a different one to craft the position for the poster who didn't do so but is still holding back a ¢"but not like that" & "no I like it for this different reason".

It's just funny people seizing on stupid things to undermine 5E. Espicially when tbe same arguments torpedo thei preferred edition.

Is 5E badly designed for high level play to the point you don't want to play it? Maybe.

Better than an edition badly designed where you don't want to play it at all at any level yes?

If I was thinking of a level 1-20 gane I woukd look for 5 dedicated players.

What are you up to 75% of your weekends for the next 2 years?

If it's bi weekly 4 years.

2 players drop campaigns over. DM gets bored campaigns over. 4 hour session 3/4 weeks 4 sessions a level roughly. Maybe a few sessions quicker around 70.

Starting at level 10 still looking at about a year, 6 months with very rapid leveling eg 2 sessions per level.

As DM am I getting paid for this?