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

[tetrasodium]

I think almost all of the options are contributing factors, but I want to push back against this one (and apologies if this has been discussed already, I didn't read all 45 pages of the thread):

If it's taking games too long to reach high levels, it's because in my experience, DMs level their players up at far slower of a rate than the game expects. The 2014 DMG had a blurb on "Session Based Advancement" that laid out how often the game expected players to level up - and it was about once every 3-4 sessions. At that pace, it would take roughly a year and a half of weekly sessions to go from level 1 to 20. Meanwhile, I feel like I often read posts saying things like, "our campaign has been going for three years and we just hit level 8."

I'm not saying that these DMs are wrong for leveling up their players at such a slow pace - as this thread shows, there are many reasons they might want to keep their game at low levels for a long time. But I think saying the system takes too long is absolutely incorrect.

[phoenix_wright_OBJECTION!_.gif]
There are two serious problems with the foundations of your post. Firstly is the fact that "high level" starts well before level 20. Wotc has put out data showing that most games end by around level 10 & drops off till it jumps a bit for level 20ish one shots. Secondly is the fact that for a decade now people have complained about problems in high level gameplay that start late tier2 early tier3.

Combine the two and "high level" starts well before level 20 where it eventually finishes evolving into something else beyond high level play.

 

[Belen]

It's totally because Fans don't want to define what the game is supposed to be so you can't define the restrictions.

It's the flaw of "Flavor is free". If anything can be anything and casters can be a caster from 18 different mediums, then a high level player character can't be limited to specific limitations unless you ALL deem ALL characters have that limitation.

But if you a Vancian caster or a Potterverse caster, you know the hard limitations and accept them.

I get that point, but D&D is its own thing. Sure, you could run multiple play styles and styles of games in older editions but D&D was still a brand with limitations baked into the mix.

I find that the way spells worked in 1e/2e/3.0 was superior. There was power but you had to be sure it was a good use of it if you wanted to cast that spell.

For me, I enjoy high level play but it often cannot be squared within the same setting as low level play.

You almost need to play in something like Eberron or FR in order to make high level play even make sense.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree with everything @Belen wrote in 462 especially the last 2 lines about the setting.

It's totally because Fans don't want to define what the game is supposed to be so you can't define the restrictions.

It's the flaw of "Flavor is free". If anything can be anything and casters can be a caster from 18 different mediums, then a high level player character can't be limited to specific limitations unless you ALL deem ALL characters have that limitation.

But if you a Vancian caster or a Potterverse caster, you know the hard limitations and accept them.

Taking this a step further and showing how extreme that lack of definition grows to become once you start defining things differently I'll use an example commonly seen in wuxia/cultivation/anime that can't be unseen once noticed. In those noted genres it's super common for what should be close range combats to take place over incredible distances & to happen at incredible speeds too fast for "mortals" (ie commoners/low levels/etc) to really process in the moment, but there's two very different results that stem from how you define a few parts of that distance and speed.

Firstly you have the idea that the combatants are just so freakishly supernaturally fast ascended beings who can interact with the environment make multiple attacks maybe even carry on conversations & move around in a blink of the eye too fast for mere mortals to process... Secondly is the part you can't unsee where combatants engage in multiple attacks interact with the environment environment move around & so on in a turn based reality taking place between ticks of the real time clock that lower levels & mere mortals exist in

Spoiler: excellent examples

Not everyopne can step outside the bindings of real time linear existence.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think almost all of the options are contributing factors, but I want to push back against this one (and apologies if this has been discussed already, I didn't read all 45 pages of the thread):

If it's taking games too long to reach high levels, it's because in my experience, DMs level their players up at far slower of a rate than the game expects. The 2014 DMG had a blurb on "Session Based Advancement" that laid out how often the game expected players to level up - and it was about once every 3-4 sessions. At that pace, it would take roughly a year and a half of weekly sessions to go from level 1 to 20. Meanwhile, I feel like I often read posts saying things like, "our campaign has been going for three years and we just hit level 8."

I'm not saying that these DMs are wrong for leveling up their players at such a slow pace - as this thread shows, there are many reasons they might want to keep their game at low levels for a long time. But I think saying the system takes too long is absolutely incorrect.

Except people aren't robots plus holidays, life. Kids etc.

My estimate was around 2 years at 75% weeks played t hit level 20 leveling around every 4 sessions.

We fo bi weekly with bonus sessions so probably 30-35 sessions a year.

 

[marimbaguy715]

[phoenix_wright_OBJECTION!_.gif]
There are two serious problems with the foundations of your post. Firstly is the fact that "high level" starts well before level 20. Wotc has put out data showing that most games end by around level 10 & drops off till it jumps a bit for level 20ish one shots. Secondly is the fact that for a decade now people have complained about problems in high level gameplay that start late tier2 early tier3.

Combine the two and "high level" starts well before level 20 where it eventually finishes evolving into something else beyond high level play.

That... supports my argument? I agree that high level D&D has its issues. I was arguing against the idea that it takes too long to reach high levels. I fully agree that "high levels" start well before level 20, and that means it takes well less than the year and a half mentioned to reach that point. By the DMG recommentations, it could take as little as 24 sessions to reach level 11. So clearly the issue isn't the leveling system taking too long.

 

[Minigiant]

That... supports my argument? I agree that high level D&D has its issues. I was arguing against the idea that it takes too long to reach high levels. I fully agree that "high levels" start well before level 20, and that means it takes well less than the year and a half mentioned to reach that point. By the DMG recommentations, it could take as little as 24 sessions to reach level 11. So clearly the issue isn't the leveling system taking too long.

The real problem is not the actual time between getting from first level to 15th level as much as it's


1) Getting used to your PCs capabilities
2) Enjoying use of your PC's capabilities.

The problem won't go in from first to 15th is that you want to experience the time.

 

[GrimCo]

It depends what you consider high levels. Some people consider tier 3 high levels. Some tier 4. Personally, i would put high levels at teens. So 13 and up, mid tier 3. Even if you take level 11 with standard 3-4 sessions for level, that's still 30-40 sessions, or for most groups i know, around full year of play (and a good year at that).

 

[Belen]

It depends what you consider high levels. Some people consider tier 3 high levels. Some tier 4. Personally, i would put high levels at teens. So 13 and up, mid tier 3. Even if you take level 11 with standard 3-4 sessions for level, that's still 30-40 sessions, or for most groups i know, around full year of play (and a good year at that).

Are you using 4e level tier designations?

I do not hear normal players using tier language for levels. I an only guess you mean 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20…..

 

[GrimCo]

Yep, DMG 2014, P37. Tiers of play. T1 Local heroes (1-4), T2 Heroes of the realm (5-10), T3 Masters of the realm (11-15), T4 Masters of the world (16-20).

 

[Zardnaar]

Currently level 7. Since September iirc.

Message today. Kid and myself soccer trials. 2/5 players lol.

Other group new player. Weeknight sessions are short. Response "can you play weekends". "No I walk".

Another player. "In a month I'm leaving the country for 3 months".

Real reason high level play is rare.