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

[Ogre Mage]

I'd say stopping the game before Tier 4 has been about 2/3 DM preference and 1/3 player preference. DMs have trouble providing balanced encounters for PCs at that level and dislike managing all the game-breaking things PCs can do in Tier 4.

But I certainly have encountered players who disliked Tier 4. In past versions of D&D, managing high level PCs practically required a spreadsheet, lol. It's too much for some people. This seems to be less of a problem in 5E, but I have had very little experience with Tier 4 play. As others have mentioned, some people just don't like playing high fantasy superheroes.

I personally have a strong preference for Tier 2 (5-10) as PC abilities at that stage have grown significant and diverse enough to keep me engaged, yet it is not hard for a DM to pull out forces which are scary to us if he or she chooses. I also enjoy Tier 3 (11-16) play. I hate Tier 1 (1-4) play because too many campaign I played in died there and never got to my preferred stage.

 

[Dausuul]

Invariably, in my experience, it's due to the DM running out of steam. It isn't a deliberate effort to avoid high level play; they just don't have the oomph to carry on all the way to 20. Either they bring the campaign to a planned end or it just peters out.

 

[TarionzCousin]

In my experience most groups that do high level play are composed of people who most enjoy the storytelling element of the game and from the very beginning were motivated mainly by role-playing rather than dungeoneering and were even at low levels trying to shape political developments in their local areas. And the kind of DM who'd be attracted to that kind of campaign would be exactly the type who'd be well-suited to handle high-level play.

This is what I came here to say.

 

[Zardnaar]

Logistics and groups falling apart after after a few sessions.

Only way we made it to high level was back in the day all of us were friends. Players left but one at a time and replaced one at a time.

Everyone needs to be fanatic as well.

Thrown together groups tend to fall apart. Inexperienced DMs, or casual players.

D&D for lyfe type players. I've had players last 17, 14, 10 years. Picked up a newb only 9 years.

Failing that you need a core group to build around. Started a new campaign with 3 new players but that's probably the first time ever.

Players getting married or having kids is often a sign you will need a new player soon.

 

[Blue]

When I run, I start campaigns in Tier 1. I don't advance quickly. After a few years of running, I burn out and want to take a break. That is a hard limit on any particular campaign if it hasn't wrapped up organically by then.

So I guess the issue is that I don't like too fast a rate of advancement, not an issue with high level play.

 

[Flamestrike]

I find it tends to be DM 'Burnout'. Immediately following the PCs using a combination of high level abilities the DM hadnt forseen due to rarely Dming past a certain level and lacking experience.

Players advance to a level past 7th or so, and gain access to new abilities that thwart the DM's plan in ways he hadnt forseen (due to previously rage-quitting a campaign when a similar thing happened) and he then proceeds to rage-quit citing burn out.

It usually goes with the DM still creating adventures with the abilities of low level PCs in mind. A classic example is a tower with multiple levels, each level with an encounter, and special keys that must be won to advance to the next level, that the PCs have to storm to get the the BBEG, designed for mid level PCs.

The adventure starts, and the PCs disintegrate the tower, teleport to the final room, cast earthquake or rock to mud and topple it or one of a dozen other things wrecking the adventure in around 5 minutes.

I've seen it a billion times; the DM then has to resort to a lot of fiat 'that doesnt work' or 'nope' or 'anti-magic' or similar shennanigans to thwart it.

naughty word escalates, and a DM rage quit happens not long afterwards.

Of course, by quitting campaigns when this stuff happens, the DM misses the experience of dealinig with high level abilities. And the reason he screwed up in his adventure design in the first place by not accounting for those abilities, is because he has no experience with them.

We've all done it as DM's. Been caught out by a newly acquired spell or ability that we hadnt factored in. Sometimes that's OK; new abilities are to be rewarded (and they themselves are rewards for defeating previous challenges); you congratulate the player and improvise. But sometimes they can derail a session, adventure or even entire campaign in major ways.

My advice to every DM is to stick with it. Keep going with the campaign. Learn what high level PCs can do. It's only after you've run a few such campaigns to high level, that you become familiar with those tricks, spells, abilities and shenanigans and can factor them into your adventure design organically.

Every DM knows how to DM low level PCs. Very few know how to DM high level PCs.

 

[Nebulous]

I'd say stopping the game before Tier 4 has been about 2/3 DM preference and 1/3 player preference. DMs have trouble providing balanced encounters for PCs at that level and dislike managing all the game-breaking things PCs can do in Tier 4.

But I certainly have encountered players who disliked Tier 4. In past versions of D&D, managing high level PCs practically required a spreadsheet, lol. It's too much for some people. This seems to be less of a problem in 5E, but I have had very little experience with Tier 4 play. As others have mentioned, some people just don't like playing high fantasy superheroes.

I personally have a strong preference for Tier 2 (5-10) as PC abilities at that stage have grown significant and diverse enough to keep me engaged, yet it is not hard for a DM to pull out forces which are scary to us if he or she chooses. I also enjoy Tier 3 (11-15) play. I hate Tier 1 (1-4) play because too many campaign I played in died there and never got to my preferred stage.

1st to 9th- as DM- are my favorite levels. Yes, even 1st, I LOVE seeing players roleplay more and think outside the box to actually solve problems when they can't rely on magic, healing and hit points to support them.

But even toward the end of Tier 2, 9th and 10th level, I find it getting harder to build balanced encounters. It takes me more and more time behind the scenes to do that, and I don't like spending my time like that. At lower levels I can throw an encounter together in my head and it just works. By 12th level, I remember telling myself more than once, "God, I hate this game."

 

[DND_Reborn]

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?

I've DMed several campaigns up to very high levels.

In BECMI, we made it into Immortals for about six months, but that game took most of high school, nearly all four years. We played some AD&D during then as well when we felt like a break.

In AD&D 1E/2E, we got up into the high teens in one game (17-19th) and over 20th in another (IIRC 24th was the highest level character).

Other 1E/2E games got to 12-15 pretty regularly.

It is actually pretty rare for my games to stop before Tier 3 (in 5E terms), and hitting Tier 4 would not be uncommon.

 

[Nebulous]

We've all done it as DM's. Been caught out by a newly acquired spell or ability that we hadnt factored in. Sometimes that's OK; new abilities are to be rewarded (and they themselves are rewards for defeating previous challenges); you congratulate the player and improvise. But sometimes they can derail a session, adventure or even entire campaign in major ways.

My advice to every DM is to stick with it. Keep going with the campaign. Learn what high level PCs can do. It's only after you've run a few such campaigns to high level, that you become familiar with those tricks, spells, abilities and shenanigans and can factor them into your adventure design organically.

Every DM knows how to DM low level PCs. Very few know how to DM high level PCs.

Yep, newly acquired class abilities and spells pop up out of the blue, really powerful stuff sometimes that you don't see coming. It can be annoying, but the players sure do love the stuff. And I've done high level, I just don't like it. My players don't like either, it removes itself from the traditional low to mid fantasy mold and skyrockets to a supers game.

I remember some years back though, there was a guy on here who was running a 20th level 4th edition campaign - a game I hated - but his story hour thread was SO utterly enthralling, exciting and deep, I was amazed how someone could actually pull that off with 4e. His talent was beyond mine, no doubt.

 

[S'mon]

I have kinda more had the opposite issue in that 5e is designed to go 1-20 and fairly fast, and (unlike 3e IME) plays smoothly 1 to 20. But then you are at 20 and there is not a lot of support; I am running an E20 game with the DMG Epic Boons system and it works well, but is not as satisfying as levelling up I think. And monsters - well how many times can I reskin a Kraken?

Also, as others have said, 5-10 remains the sweet spot in terms of the traditional adventuring experience. So I am thinking if maybe I should be looking more to an old school BX-style ethos of playing 1-10 as the adventurer levels and looking at 11-14 as 'Endgame', for politics, war and territory development. In contrast to 5e's RAW XP system this will require much slower advancement after 10th, and discouraging the notion that PCs will reach 20th.

I'm also wondering about the possibility of E10 play and having PCs stay in the 'hero not superhero' zone indefinitely. Maybe for a grittier campaign.