D&D General Adventurers in Faerun-The Book of Low and Mid Level Adventures?

[Reynard]

Do (general) you think that if PLAYING high level 5E characters was easier -- not so many options, easier math, some other element -- more people would RUN high level 5E? I have never found 5E difficult at higher levels as a GM -- at least, certainly not as difficult as 3.x. The biggest problem (as we have discussed a number of times here) is that most high level monsters in 5E are terribly designed for that purpose. But since I have developed a solid work around, I don't worry aboutt hat so much.

In other words, are players actually the barrier to more high level play in 5E?

 

[Rushbolt]

I believe the barrier is Wizards and their lack of support for the DM at high levels. If non-homebrew DMs can't find good adventures to run at those levels then the player base can never be built.

 

[Reynard]

I believe the barrier is Wizards and their lack of support for the DM at high levels. If non-homebrew DMs can't find good adventures to run at those levels then the player base can never be built.

Rolling it around in my head more, we know that most GMs homebrew rather than use published scenarios. If that is the case, then (and I am admitting potentially being wrong previously, so mark yer calendars) the lack of high level adventures can't really be the problem. So what then? Is it systemic? If so, does high level play need an overhaul, or just excised? If it isn't systemic, then it is some form of broad preference, in which case the whole "campaigns end before high level" becomes more likely the culprit.

What is it about high level D&D that makes it unpalatable to most groups?

 

[Mort]

Rolling it around in my head more, we know that most GMs homebrew rather than use published scenarios.

I've heard that said, but how do we "know."

Personally, I do a mix. And I'm very happy to crib scenarios, encounters etc. from published material. And I'm sure many people who homebrew are similar. Why reinvent the wheel? Especially for high level stuff, which is more complex already.

If that is the case, then (and I am admitting potentially being wrong previously, so mark yer calendars) the lack of high level adventures can't really be the problem. So what then? Is it systemic? If so, does high level play need an overhaul, or just excised? If it isn't systemic, then it is some form of broad preference, in which case the whole "campaigns end before high level" becomes more likely the culprit.

What is it about high level D&D that makes it unpalatable to most groups?

Speaking from my own experience:

From a DMs perspective: High level play is challenging because you want the encounters to be fun and challenging without being a slog. That's not always easy to design, because to be fun they have to be something other than hit monster until it goes down (presumably the group has already done plenty of that and wants more). And because high level groups bring A LOT of levers they can pull, but it's not always the same levers. A DM has to be MUCH more familiar with the group to design interesting situations than they do at lower levels. And while 5e is significantly easier than 3e at high levels, there are still a lot of moving parts, more guidance can help a lot, especially with newer DMs.

From a player perspective: many players SAY they want to play high level. But not as many are willing to be as familiar with their high level character as necessary for the play to be smooth. I've DMd several groups through high level one shots because they requested it. Despite specific warnings to be fully familiar with their characters because they will need to be (and plenty of time), most were just not. And not just the casters, either. This makes things difficult if the DM is not seriously knowledgeable/experienced because they will be doing double duty re: knowledge of the PCs and their own stuff (which, at high level, is already a lot). Once this barrier is overcome, I've found high level play can be really fun and enjoyable but everyone needs to be on that same page. The DM needs to be having fun to, or burnout is inevitable, one reason I won't DM high level 3e anymore!

 

[mearls]

@mearls had some actual data on this in the early days of 2014 D&D I think. He got surveys back showing that most groups stopped at like 5th level but then started back over at 1st again the next week. He can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

That's correct. I think there are a lot of reasons for that, but the biggest in my mind is that the work needed to play and run the game goes up significantly, but the enjoyment of playing the game remains the same. More work for the same amount of fun.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've heard that said, but how do we "know."

Repeated surveys by WotC, Sly Flourish and others.

 

[Mort]

Repeated surveys by WotC, Sly Flourish and others.

Sure,

I do think high level published material is quite useful to those that homebrew, it certainly is for me. As I said above, always helps to have good sources to crib from and but have to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Reynard]

That's correct. I think there are a lot of reasons for that, but the biggest in my mind is that the work needed to play and run the game goes up significantly, but the enjoyment of playing the game remains the same. More work for the same amount of fun.

So why design it that way? If leveling included elimination of (now largely useless) low level options as you gain the high level options, then the workload for everyone would go down.

 

[Parmandur]

as well as being the follow up to a adventure that itself did not do great

Actually, if you fiuble back, Dragon Heist is one of the best selling 5E books.

 

[Reynard]

Actually, if you fiuble back, Dragon Heist is one of the best selling 5E books.

Maybe. It is also one of the most divisive. I think it was a great toolbox and a garbage adventure, but others obviously disagree.