D&D 5E Avoiding High Level Play - Player or DM Preference?

[pogre]

Is it player preference or dungeon master preference that is ending campaigns/adventure paths before high levels?

My sense is that players really want to continue playing high level PCs, but the campaigns tend to fizzle on the DM's part. However, that is a very local observation and I'm interested in your perspective. Do players really prefer to end campaigns as their PCs near or hit 4th tier? Is the so-called 'sweet spot' of the game, 3rd-8th level (or 10th), the sweet spot for DMs and Players?

 

[5ekyu]

Is it player preference or dungeon master preference that is ending campaigns/adventure paths before high levels?

My sense is that players really want to continue playing high level PCs, but the campaigns tend to fizzle on the DM's part. However, that is a very local observation and I'm interested in your perspective. Do players really prefer to end campaigns as their PCs near or hit 4th tier? Is the so-called 'sweet spot' of the game, 3rd-8th level (or 10th), the sweet spot for DMs and Players?

Most of our campaigns end after 1-2 years when a lot of the main stories have evolved and characters more complete. Rather than continue with the same, we ho for something new.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Honestly once the game becomes more Justice League than Conan I lose interest, but I've rarely seen a well done adventure for those insane power levels.

 

[Retreater]

My knee-jerk reaction is "DM preference" - however, in actual practice, the campaigns just fall apart due to player apathy, scheduling difficulty, TPKs, or other assorted factors. So it's a shared fault.

 

[BigBadDM]

I think there is a big difference between 'playing high levels' (as the title suggests) and playing a campaign levels 1-20.

I have played and DMed several one-shot (mini-campaigns) that start at higher levels. Some even at tier4. They are just as enjoyable as any other tier.

Now going from level 1 to level 20, that takes commitment. If you play too often you'll have people drop off due to burnout. If you don't play enough, it can take 5 to 7 years to reach that. My main group that I DM in we play once a month. They are only level 8 after 2 years. They'll make 20 one day, the last campaign did too. But if you play once or more times a week, burnout and commitment issues are hard to prevent on both the DM and player front.

 

[pogre]

If you play too often you'll have people drop off due to burnout.

That's an interesting observation that is different from my experience. I much prefer a weekly campaign because players tend to remember what we are doing. I have not seen much player burn out.

Naturally, it depends on your time involved. Playing a high-paced weekly game for four hours is a lot more enjoyable than playing an all-day affair once a month for us.

 

[pogre]

Honestly once the game becomes more Justice League than Conan I lose interest, but I've rarely seen a well done adventure for those insane power levels.

As a DM or player? Totally agree with your second observation about adventures.

 

[S'mon]

Is it player preference or dungeon master preference that is ending campaigns/adventure paths before high levels?

My sense is that players really want to continue playing high level PCs, but the campaigns tend to fizzle on the DM's part. However, that is a very local observation and I'm interested in your perspective. Do players really prefer to end campaigns as their PCs near or hit 4th tier? Is the so-called 'sweet spot' of the game, 3rd-8th level (or 10th), the sweet spot for DMs and Players?

My players generally seem keen to play 1-20 and I'm happy to GM them. I've now had 2 campaigns go 1-20; it does take a lot of play though if you use anything like by the book XP. I have another campaign that should go 1-20 in a year of weekly play but only because of houseruled XP system that levels them every 2-3 sessions. Default rate is more like half that.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think its a DM thing: the more powerful the party is, the more planning encounters become a math chore instead of a fun story thing.

I know my players would like to play at high level, but I often '(bluntly) remember them that they barely understand the working of their PC at level 4. I wont play at level 17 if I still have to remind the druid that it can shapeshift or the paladin that it can smite!

 

[BigBadDM]

Just to add one more thing:

I haven't met a player (and when I am one myself) who doesn't want to reach level 20. I think that is everyone's desire in playing the game.

The game really does act different though when you get in higher tiers.
Tier2 is perfect in the sense that there is still a real sense of danger mixed with tactical choices. The world also feels more explorable and mysterious.

Tier4 is good if you like tactics. The sense of dying is minimized to a large extent (except freak accidents). The world feels like it has to be rescued rather than explored.