D&D 5E At what level does play become "high level"?

[Haffrung]

I remain deeply interested in the answer to the question of whether most games don't reach higher levels because they prefer not to play at those levels, or whether most groups don't get there because of time.

There is also the lack of published support, but that's a bit chicken and egg.

I will say that the vast most of the campaigns that have run for more then a year have not been with D&D but instead in systems with less steep power curves.

Reasons I've experienced, and seen others cite:

Group breaks up.

• Players move away.
• Players no longer have time due to family, jobs, etc.
• DM burns out.

Players want to move on to another game or campaign.

• They find combat gets too bogged down.
• They get bored of their PCs or the campaign.
• They want to change to try a different RPG or switch to boardgames for a while.

DM wants to move on to another game or campaign.

• They find the combat gets too bogged down.
• Find running the game at high levels onerous.
• Find it difficult to challenge high level PCs.
• Get bored of the campaign and want to try another one they've bought or created (Seth Skorkowski talks about this in his videos).

One that isn't mentioned much, but which is common in my case, is a TPK. That has been the cause of several of my campaigns ending at levels 8-10 that would have gone on to higher levels otherwise. I have to wonder if groups that routinely reach level 15+ have atypically non-lethal playing styles. Because even with only a 1 per cent chance of a very challenging encounter becoming a TPK, by 10 or 11th level you're beating the odds with each continued success.

Which ties into the point of DMs wrapping up a campaign once they find it difficult to challenge PCs. For me, D&D loses much of its appeal if perma-death isn't on the table as a source of tension.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I figured that was your view. Mine is there are more than 3 categories, and even with the 3 nothing says they need be divided evenly. That is subjective and your choice (nothing wrong with that of course). Others might view the game as low (1-4), mid (5-8), high (9-12), very high (13-16), and epic (17-20) or even low (1-2), mid (3-8), high (9-20), or any other way. If it was just mathematical in a 1/3-even split, there would be no point in the poll... it would be just as you describe. But again, how you divide up the levels is subjective.

Well, what you just described here is subjective. Mid level literally means the middle levels. You can divide it up into more groups and your first grouping works well enough, except for the name. To be accurate, though, it should have been crappy, I mean very low(1-4), low(5-8), mid(9-12), high(13-16) and very high/epic(17-20). Of course that makes high level 13 again. The second one is just based on feeling and while the middle category is called mid level, it does not accurately tell us what the middle range of levels are.

And I agree, the poll as written has little point. It should have asked, "At what level does the game feel high level to you?"

 

[DND_Reborn]

And I agree, the poll as written has little point. It should have asked, "At what level does the game feel high level to you?"

LOL I think that is the way many people took it, I know I took it that way...

 

[Maxperson]

LOL I think that is the way many people took it, I know I took it that way...

That isn't at all what it asked, though. I'm not going to assume things. So not only am I not going to assume that the poll means something other than what it asks, I'm also not going to assume that the people answering the poll are answering an assumption.

 

[Don Durito]

Reasons I've experienced, and seen others cite:

Group breaks up.

• Players move away.
• Players no longer have time due to family, jobs, etc.
• DM burns out.

Players want to move on to another game or campaign.

• They find combat gets too bogged down.
• They get bored of their PCs or the campaign.
• They want to change to try a different RPG or switch to boardgames for a while.

DM wants to move on to another game or campaign.

• They find the combat gets too bogged down.
• Find running the game at high levels onerous.
• Find it difficult to challenge high level PCs.
• Get bored of the campaign and want to try another one they've bought or created (Seth Skorkowski talks about this in his videos).

One that isn't mentioned much, but which is common in my case, is a TPK. That has been the cause of several of my campaigns ending at levels 8-10 that would have gone on to higher levels otherwise. I have to wonder if groups that routinely reach level 15+ have atypically non-lethal playing styles. Because even with only a 1 per cent chance of a very challenging encounter becoming a TPK, by 10 or 11th level you're beating the odds with each continued success.

Which ties into the point of DMs wrapping up a campaign once they find it difficult to challenge PCs. For me, D&D loses much of its appeal if perma-death isn't on the table as a source of tension.

Some of these things would be countered by slower advancement.

This is part of my curiosity about this. Their seems to be this sense in modern D&D that pcs should gain levels relatively quickly, and from one perspective that matters, after all it is the mechanical reward, but on the other it pushes pcs towards high levels. This has the affect of making the game reach difficult levels to play to quickly and for characters to advance too quickly, so that they're reaching new levels of power before players have gron fully comfortable with the old.

I wonder if some system like Earthdawn or Numenera or to a lesser extent 13th Age, is desirable here - where you get a chance to obtain something in between the levels and can therefore slow down levelling.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That isn't at all what it asked, though. I'm not going to assume things. So not only am I not going to assume that the poll means something other than what it asks, I'm also not going to assume that the people answering the poll are answering an assumption.

Well, that is fine of course, but you could have avoided issues and needing to make several posts if you had taken it as it was likely intended. What is the purpose of a poll, otherwise? Did you not understand that "high level" in quotes was meant to be subjective?

Otherwise, taken more literally as you did it becomes a simple question of defined categories and math (as you pointed out). If the categories are simply low, middle, and high, then sure around level 13 or so would be the beginning of high level. Or maybe it is structured as the game designers did, by tier, in which case level 11 (the most common vote, of course, and I believe for this very reason) becomes the beginning of high level.

At any rate, this is simply a difference of interpretation. Make or don't make assumptions as you see fit. Given the nature of polls and the fact the "high level" in the poll question is quoted, I feel fine assuming the poll was meant to be subjective.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Well, what you just described here is subjective. Mid level literally means the middle levels. You can divide it up into more groups and your first grouping works well enough, except for the name. To be accurate, though, it should have been crappy, I mean very low(1-4), low(5-8), mid(9-12), high(13-16) and very high/epic(17-20). Of course that makes high level 13 again. The second one is just based on feeling and while the middle category is called mid level, it does not accurately tell us what the middle range of levels are.

As @dnd4vr guessed, it was meant to be subjective. That's why the first post said, to paraphrase, "If someone said to you that they 'just reached high level' in a game of 5e D&D, what level do you think they have reached?" (I've just noticed some of the words in my opening post were deleted somehow, but I don't think that significantly alters the meaning.)

The scenario was deliberately ambiguous since it's asking the reader what they think an unknown, anonymous individual who is familiar with the game thinks "high level" is. The intent of the poll is to capture hidden assumptions and aggregate opinions on the meaning of the term "high level" when it's used in it's proper context by someone that the reader could assume was as familiar with the game as they are.

You're not wrong for thinking high level begins at level 13. It's just that most people here who answered the poll think high level begins at level 9-11.

And I agree, the poll as written has little point. It should have asked, "At what level does the game feel high level to you?"

Part of the intent was to capture answers from people who took the statement extremely literally and those who took the statement very subjectively. The point is to survey the range of interpretations, not determine an objective answer for precisely the moment PCs reach high level.

The point was to poll for interpretation, not truth. There is no right answer. It's like a poll for what you would want on a pizza.