90% of D&D Games Stop By Level 10; Wizards More Popular At Higher Levels

D&D Beyond has released some more data mined from usage of its platform. A couple of weeks ago, it published some stats on the most viewed D&D adventures, from Dragon Heist and Strahd all the way down to Rise of Tiamat. This time, it's a look at player characters by tier of play.

​

Tier 1 is levels 1-4, Tier 2 is levels 5-10, Tier 3 is levels 11-16, and Tier 4 is levels 17-20.

Tier 1 contains the most characters created on the platform (as you would expect), followed in order by Tiers 2-4. About 90% of games do not make it past the 10th level mark, as the developer notes.

​

This chart shows that the fighter is the most common class at all tiers, followed by the rogue. At third place it switches up a bit - the wizard becomes more popular in Tiers 3-4 than in Tiers 1-2, while the cleric and ranger both have a strong presence at lower levels but drop off at higher levels.

You can find the report in the latest DDB development video below.

[video=youtube;4tuIrGLKSik]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tuIrGLKSik[/video]​

 

[delericho]

I'm not at all surprised.

For my part, in 37 years I've had a grand total of four campaigns make it to level 10 or above. And, in truth, every one of those felt like it just went on too long.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Im a firm believer in the fact numbers can say anything if tortured enough.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

As far as I can tell, the numbers speak for themselves.

Player usage of the Champion was sky-high (in 5.0; we don't have data for 5.5e yet, but I doubt this is going to change at all.)

Player satisfaction with the Champion was somewhere in the mid-50s, percentagewise. (It wasn't the worst. That was Berserker, which was legitimately in negative net satisfaction ranking, being less than 50%. Yet it was still the second-most-played Barbarian subclass.)

What explains that data other than "people are playing a thing despite being unsatisfied with it"?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Champions really good now in 5.5.

Irrelevant to the point I was making--unless you recognize the reworks as WotC saying, "oh, sorry guys, we get that this option is popular but unsatisfactory, we'll fix it." In which case, the fact that they fixed it is an admission that something can be simultaneously, by WotC's own data and admission, widely-played but unsatisfactory.

In other words, we cannot argue that because people do something a lot, they must be happy with it. We have actual, documented evidence that people play things they're unsatisfied with. The argument doesn't just not hold water, we have an actual, documented case with Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition specifically where that argument objectively failed.

It's only a point I've been arguing for 4-5 years, which got brushed aside, ignored, mocked. Repeatedly. And now that we can actually prove it? Would you look at that, nobody wants to talk about it anymore. Who'da thunk it?

"Popularity" confuses the issue by conflating different meanings. People use things a lot. Sometimes, they use them because they're loved for being exactly the specific things they are. Sometimes, they use them because they like the concept, but are sour on the execution. Sometimes, they don't even like the thing at all, but play it for some other reason.

We cannot reason from "it is widely used" to "therefore, it is good." Not in terms of user satisfaction, not in terms of effectiveness at achieving the goals for which it was designed, not even in terms of whether it was wisely-chosen for inclusion within the game. All we can say is that there is something about it that convinces people to use it. We need more information to say more--and, unfortunately, most of the time there isn't more information to be had. That WotC has absolutely rubbish data-collection and analysis certainly doesn't help matters, but even if it were absolutely top-notch on that front, they'll never share most of their data with us, and even what they do share may not answer the questions we're trying to ask.

 

[Zardnaar]

Irrelevant to the point I was making--unless you recognize the reworks as WotC saying, "oh, sorry guys, we get that this option is popular but unsatisfactory, we'll fix it." In which case, the fact that they fixed it is an admission that something can be simultaneously, by WotC's own data and admission, widely-played but unsatisfactory.

In other words, we cannot argue that because people do something a lot, they must be happy with it. We have actual, documented evidence that people play things they're unsatisfied with. The argument doesn't just not hold water, we have an actual, documented case with Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition specifically where that argument objectively failed.

It's only a point I've been arguing for 4-5 years, which got brushed aside, ignored, mocked. Repeatedly. And now that we can actually prove it? Would you look at that, nobody wants to talk about it anymore. Who'da thunk it?

"Popularity" confuses the issue by conflating different meanings. People use things a lot. Sometimes, they use them because they're loved for being exactly the specific things they are. Sometimes, they use them because they like the concept, but are sour on the execution. Sometimes, they don't even like the thing at all, but play it for some other reason.

We cannot reason from "it is widely used" to "therefore, it is good." Not in terms of user satisfaction, not in terms of effectiveness at achieving the goals for which it was designed, not even in terms of whether it was wisely-chosen for inclusion within the game. All we can say is that there is something about it that convinces people to use it. We need more information to say more--and, unfortunately, most of the time there isn't more information to be had. That WotC has absolutely rubbish data-collection and analysis certainly doesn't help matters, but even if it were absolutely top-notch on that front, they'll never share most of their data with us, and even what they do share may not answer the questions we're trying to ask.

People just don't care that much though. Biggest selling edition ever.

People who respond to surveys etc are probably the hard core of the player base. I've seen people pick champions even knowing they're not the best. Main reason is they can't be bothered with spells or superior dice.

Class isn't designed for you or me (I have played a champion lol).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

People just don't care that much though. Biggest selling edition ever.

People who respond to surveys etc are probably the hard core of the player base. I've seen people pick champions even knowing they're not the best. Main reason is they can't be bothered with spells or superior dice.

Class isn't designed for you or me (I have played a champion lol).

...I mean, clearly they DO care, otherwise WotC would not have had a slide on an internal presentation (one I believe we outsiders weren't intended to see?) saying that it was a problem that the 5.0 Champion was in the mid-50s for satisfaction rating, and that the reworked one was doing much much better.

Further...you've literally just made my own point. Like almost word for word. "I've seen people pick champions even knowing they're not the best." The only difference between my point and yours is that yours uses a gentler expression--"not the best"--as opposed to mine, which is would be the much simpler "unsatisfactory."

Like...you're arguing against me by literally making my own point. People play things they aren't entirely happy with, knowing it won't make them as happy as it COULD if it were better-made, because they don't feel they have any other options. They won't get full use out of the objectively stronger/more-capable/more-flexible/etc. options, whether because they forget about such features or because they don't like such mechanics or whatever else. So at least some people, objectively, are turning to the simple option despite knowing that it isn't very good, even though they know it's unsatisfactory, because the other options would be worse in some way.

That's not even remotely an endorsement, a "yes everything is great and wonderful and I'm happy with what I'm doing."

The only explanation that covers why something can be both the most widely played thing, AND the second least satisfactory thing, is for at least some people to be intentionally playing something they aren't satisfied with. Which should be completely impossible, if you accept the argument that if something is widely-used, it must be "popular" as in well-liked.

Literally not one part of this has anything to do with my preferences. It is simply an expression of fact: Champion was, objectively, the most widely-played Fighter subclass in 5.0. Champion was, objectively, one of the least-satisfactory subclasses in 5.0. Consequently, we cannot conclude that something being frequently used automatically means it must be satisfactory to those who play it. (And, likewise, the converse is also unreliable: we cannot reason from the fact that something is satisfactory to conclude that therefore it must be widely-played.)

 

[Zardnaar]

...I mean, clearly they DO care, otherwise WotC would not have had a slide on an internal presentation (one I believe we outsiders weren't intended to see?) saying that it was a problem that the 5.0 Champion was in the mid-50s for satisfaction rating, and that the reworked one was doing much much better.

Further...you've literally just made my own point. Like almost word for word. "I've seen people pick champions even knowing they're not the best." The only difference between my point and yours is that yours uses a gentler expression--"not the best"--as opposed to mine, which is would be the much simpler "unsatisfactory."

Like...you're arguing against me by literally making my own point. People play things they aren't entirely happy with, knowing it won't make them as happy as it COULD if it were better-made, because they don't feel they have any other options. They won't get full use out of the objectively stronger/more-capable/more-flexible/etc. options, whether because they forget about such features or because they don't like such mechanics or whatever else. So at least some people, objectively, are turning to the simple option despite knowing that it isn't very good, even though they know it's unsatisfactory, because the other options would be worse in some way.

That's not even remotely an endorsement, a "yes everything is great and wonderful and I'm happy with what I'm doing."

The only explanation that covers why something can be both the most widely played thing, AND the second least satisfactory thing, is for at least some people to be intentionally playing something they aren't satisfied with. Which should be completely impossible, if you accept the argument that if something is widely-used, it must be "popular" as in well-liked.

Literally not one part of this has anything to do with my preferences. It is simply an expression of fact: Champion was, objectively, the most widely-played Fighter subclass in 5.0. Champion was, objectively, one of the least-satisfactory subclasses in 5.0. Consequently, we cannot conclude that something being frequently used automatically means it must be satisfactory to those who play it. (And, likewise, the converse is also unreliable: we cannot reason from the fact that something is satisfactory to conclude that therefore it must be widely-played.)

People like different things. The big selling D&Ds generally been the less complicated ones.

Old Basic D&D had 2 boxed sets sell more than every edition except 1E and 5E.

More people still liked the 2014 Champion than disliked it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

People like different things. The big selling D&Ds generally been the less complicated ones.

Old Basic D&D had 2 boxed sets sell more than every edition except 1E and 5E.

More people still liked the 2014 Champion than disliked it.

Okay?

Pleasing 55% of players does not seem like a success story to me. Nor to WotC...because that was part of why we got 5.5e.

It seems to me that you are continuing this argument because you need to defend 5th Edition as correct, as free of fault. Since I have no interest in pariticipating in that discussion, I'm not going to reply any further.

 

[mamba]

In other words, we cannot argue that because people do something a lot, they must be happy with it. We have actual, documented evidence that people play things they're unsatisfied with. The argument doesn't just not hold water, we have an actual, documented case with Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition specifically where that argument objectively failed.

so what about when people do not use / play it, are you ok with saying that is evidence that they do not like it enough to put up with it?

At least in 5e’s case they seem to like stuff well enough to play it, even if they wished for improvements

 

[EzekielRaiden]

so what about when people do not use / play it, are you ok with saying that is evidence that they do not like it enough to put up with it?

At least in 5e’s case they seem to like stuff well enough to play it, even if they wished for improvements

"Liked it well enough to play it, even if they wished for improvements" becomes a pretty blatant motte-and-bailey argument in the face of the stuff I've seen over the years insisting that because 5e sold well, because things are played frequently, then there can't possibly be a valid criticism, that everything must be absolutely fine.

People holding their proverbial noses because the best option is still not something they're satisfied with is not a good place to be. Nobody should want to be in that position rather than, y'know, people being quite satisfied with what they're getting.

So...more or less? You're asking about something irrelevant to my argument. I don't care that there are some people happy with it and other people so unhappy with it they just don't play it at all. I only care about the fact that this is objective proof--assuming you trust WotC surveys, which most of y'all have been quite happy to trust for years and years--that "it sells/gets played, therefore it's liked/good" IS NOT a valid argument.

You have to bring more to the table to make that leap, and we just do not have the "more" needed for it, at least in the vast majority of cases. We'll probably never have the "more" needed to make that argument actually valid.

 

[mamba]

Liked it well enough to play it, even if they wished for improvements" becomes a pretty blatant motte-and-bailey argument in the face of the stuff I've seen over the years insisting that because 5e sold well, because things are played frequently, then there can't possibly be a valid criticism, that everything must be absolutely fine.

maybe, but that is not the argument I was making. I am with you when the argument is that just because something is selling well does not mean it cannot be improved, that is nonsense

People holding their proverbial noses because the best option is still not something they're satisfied with is not a good place to be.

not what I said, just because something can be better does not mean you have to hold your nose when using it

I only care about the fact that this is objective proof--assuming you trust WotC surveys, which most of y'all have been quite happy to trust for years and years--that "it sells/gets played, therefore it's liked/good" IS NOT a valid argument.

it isn’t, but I’d say it sells well therefore it is better than something that does not and has the same kind of clout does hold

And ‘better’ here means better at meeting its target audience’s expectations / desires, nothing else.

You have to bring more to the table to make that leap, and we just do not have the "more" needed for it, at least in the vast majority of cases. We'll probably never have the "more" needed to make that argument actually valid.

it’s not a valid argument to begin with, that is why you do have to bring more / something else entirely