D&D General 70% Of Games End At Lvl 7?

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

Highest I've ever seen is levels 8 or 9. Happened two different AD&D 2E campaigns. Both were in the 50-60 total sessions of play range.

 

[MGibster]

2) Classes need to be restructured to gain interesting options every level. A5e has been decent about this, with social and exploration features added to every class providing new or more certain ways to get around obstacles that don't require someone to cast a spell.

I was astonished to read in the 2024 PHB or DMG the authors suggesting we should just start campaigns at level three, completely bypassing levels 1 and 2. I can only conclude that levels 1 and 2 are so boring even WotC thinks they should be skipped. I guess they lock things away at level 3 to balance against multiclassing.

I think it's just more difficult to run games for high level characters. If people wanted to run higher level campaigns they could just start their characters at level 8, 10, 12, or whatever. The problem isn't that campaigns peter out before they get to those high levels, they peter out because the game becomes less fun at higher levels.

 

[Piperken]

My experience has been that in 37 years of play (albeit with three gaps of a year or more in there), and across multiple editions, I've had a total of five campaigns make it to 10th level or above. I probably have a few more than made it to 7th, but didn't keep track. (Though, as it happens, I do know that I three of my 5e campaigns made it past that point; one of which made it to 10th.)

To better my understanding, what's your rough guess on how many years the 5 campaigns took in total?

 

[overgeeked]

Whenever we've started at 1st the game usually lasts until around 7-8th level then stops cold.

The only times I've seen higher level play in an actual game is when we started higher level for a one-shot or similar.

I think that's solidly down to the mechanics of the game. Getting tired of the slow as molasses change of characters and the boring grind of combat.

 

[Staffan]

I was astonished to read in the 2024 PHB or DMG the authors suggesting we should just start campaigns at level three, completely bypassing levels 1 and 2. I can only conclude that levels 1 and 2 are so boring even WotC thinks they should be skipped. I guess they lock things away at level 3 to balance against multiclassing.

I'm pretty sure I've seen one of the 5e devs (probably Mearls) discuss the way they planned out levels. Basically, levels 1 and 2 are tutorial levels. That's why they require so few XP, and why important class and sub-class features come online at various times from level 1 to 3. After that you get your first ability boost at level 4, and at level 5 you hit tier 2 which usually comes with some sweet stuff like 3rd level spells or extra attack – not to mention increased proficiency bonus. Then things plod on until about level 10 or 11, after which the XP table accelerates and you get increasingly powerful but limited stuff (at least spellcasters – note that it takes a long time before you get a second 6th level spell, and any spell recovery ability (Arcane Recovery, Pact Magic, whatever the Druid of the Land ability is called, converting Sorcery points to spell slots) is usually limited to spells of level 5 or less). They also expected people to start campaigns at level 3 when they have experienced players.

However, they never actually cover this structure in the DMG, so you kind of have to figure it out on your own.

 

[Piperken]

I have never had a campaign last beyond 13th level. For 5e, my highest level PC is 12th level though that is going strong and will reach higher levels I think.

But we also take much longer to level than most, it seems. We have lots of sessions of just RP. We play a single campaign for years. A campaign can last 7 years for us.

I'm glad this comment was made; I feel like based on other threads, my current table's progression is on the slower end of the pace spectrum (we just finished Session 17 this weekend; play has been a little over a year).

I worry sometimes though the feedback has been positive.

 

[bloodtide]

This is accurate. But it is more then just character level.

Time-- an average game will take at least a couple months to get to around 7th level, Assuming they play each week and assuming the game for all of the game time......many groups do neither. So three months even of doing 'a game' is a long time to many people and they will freak out and leave the game. And this includes DMs. Once people get the feeling they are "trapped" into "playing a game" every week........they bail.

Flakes and Fakes-- It is often very easy to find people to start a game. The classic is the obsessed pre-game player: They make a character and novel back story and ask everyday "when can we start the game?". They might show up for the first game.....but very quickly they will have "so many things to do" that they can "never game again".

And so many people just live wacky lives. They can't commit to a couple of hours of anything as their life is filled with so much wackiness.

At least one or two players will just drop out within the first couple weeks.

Bad Fit--- And the above does not even count players that leave as they don't like the game and or don't fit in with the group.

Boring Repeat--The game was fun for a couple weeks or months.....but then to a lot of gamers it gets boring. They don't want to run the same game forever or play the same character forever. This is even more true with the player base of Hyperactive Jumppers: every couple of weeks they want to try a new character or even a new game.

 

[MNblockhead]

I have no idea about what is typical, other than posts and articles I've read over the years, and the levels WoTC adventures are written for, which have led me to believe that few go post 10th level.

In my first D&D campaign with the world, campaign, and most adventures being home brewed, we played 1-20 in a little over a year. But that used milestone leveling, so I'm not sure it counts.

My second campaign was Curse of Strahd and it ended at, IIRC, 10th, because that was what the adventure was designed to take you to.

My third campaign we went from a 0-level funnel to 20th. I used gp for xp and mini-milestone xp. Progress was quite a bit slower than if we took the normal XP approach. That campaign started in November 2018 and ended in December 2023, about 8 hours of play per month.

After that we switched to Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, so I don't have experience running campaigns with the D&D 2024 rules yet.

My take away is the the DnD leveling system, esp. traditional XP based, can sometimes take over the driver's seat with DM having to constantly renavigate. Milestone leveling can better support story driven campaigns, but feels unsatisfactory given my preference for more sandboxy campaigns. I really liked how going to gp for XP worked out with minimilestones for given out for exceptional accomplishments. My preference for D&D is a slow burn at the early levels with bigger jumps in tier 4, which may go against traditional advancement, but it allows more time in at less powerful levels, while still allowing players to enjoy playing as superheros in the end game. It also feels like more of an accomplishment if you played much longer as less-powerful characters. And, at least for my players and I, we enjoy playing for a short bit of time in Tier 4 but don't have much interest in playing at those levels for a long period of time. By the late tier 3 levels through 20th, I tend to switch to more milestone leveling to make big jumps and pass through the final levels at a pretty quick pace.

 

[TwoSix]

My groups pretty routinely get into the high teens, but we usually start a little higher and level up pretty frequently. (Every 2-4 sessions.)

 

[Staffan]

I have no idea about what is typical, other than posts and articles I've read over the years, and the levels WoTC adventures are written for, which have led me to believe that few go post 10th level.

Come to think of it, Paizo has changed the way they do adventure paths to focus on 3-parters, with most but not all being level 1-10. My guess is that this is because it's often hard to keep a group together for the time it takes to hit level 20.

My take away is the the DnD leveling system, esp. traditional XP based, can sometimes take over the driver's seat with DM having to constantly renavigate. Milestone leveling can better support story driven campaigns, but feels unsatisfactory given my preference for more sandboxy campaigns. I really liked how going to gp for XP worked out with minimilestones for given out for exceptional accomplishments. My preference for D&D is a slow burn at the early levels with bigger jumps in tier 4, which may go against traditional advancement, but it allows more time in at less powerful levels, while still allowing players to enjoy playing as superheros in the end game. It also feels like more of an accomplishment if you played much longer as less-powerful characters. And, at least for my players and I, we enjoy playing for a short bit of time in Tier 4 but don't have much interest in playing at those levels for a long period of time. By the late tier 3 levels through 20th, I tend to switch to more milestone leveling to make big jumps and pass through the final levels at a pretty quick pace.

I prefer having highly competent but not superheroic characters, with the competence part focusing on skills rather than combat. I'd rather see a character who can break into the treasure vault of the God of Wealth, than a character who can punch said God in the face and win. I'd rather have the characters starting out highly competent and maybe not advancing so much, at least not in basic competence stuff.

So I have come to the conclusion that D&D probably isn't the game for me, and at the moment I'm running Savage Worlds (ironically with characters who are a bit on the wimpy side on account of being college students, but I think that will sort itself out eventually) instead.