D&D General Breadth vs Depth: Is D&D designed the wrong way around?

[EzekielRaiden]

That's still a lot, and I think the percentage of groups that play to higher levels is greater than that. Every group I've played with has gone into the teens, and I've played with a lot of different groups. I suppose I could be the uber lucky player who hits 5% more than a dozen times in a row, but I doubt it. I've always been very skeptical of D&D Beyond/WotC's claim about that.

Do you have any actual survey data to back it up? Because unless you do, I'm going to go with the survey data. D&D Beyond is just the newest iteration thereof. Believe me, I wish high-level D&D were more common. I find low-level D&D boring and doubly anxious (in the sense of "I want to get to the--mechanically--good stuff," and in the sense of "oh boy, yet another chance to die for stupid, pointless reasons without achieving anything or getting anywhere, scrapping yet another fun story...")

 

[mamba]

I've always been very skeptical of D&D Beyond/WotC's claim about that.

what reason would they have to lie and make that level range lower? If anything the incentive would be to make it wider imo.

Given that DDB reaches about 50% of players, I’d say their statistics are pretty accurate, certainly moreso than some anecdotal ‘evidence’

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the issue is that D&D has already been designed and at this point it doesn't matter which way you go. Design 20 classes with 10 levels or 10 classes with 20 levels the end-result design is going to be the same either way-- because it's based on a D&D game that has been in existence for almost 50 years. We know what high-level D&D is and what it looks like... so whether you put it in one PHB or put it in a second "Expert" PHB, there will not be any real differences.

The idea only works if you are designing a completely new roleplaying game... because then you have no known endstate of how the game is to be designed. You can lower levels to 10, you can lower them to 5, you can remove levels altogether and just have characters advance individual stats or skills (as so many other RPGs do.) And what the game looks like when it "ends" can evolve naturally out of the game's foundation you have put in place. But of course the issue then is we are no longer playing Dungeons & Dragons. Dungeons & Dragons has a known endstate and is going to get their one way or another, no matter how you arrange the chairs on the boat deck.

At the end of the day, every player just needs to determine what it is that THEY are looking for in their D&D... and then go find it or make it themselves. Do they want 20 classes? Well, then either move over to a game like Pathfinder that already HAS 20 classes, or go onto DMs Guild and find another half-dozen classes made by other people and incorporate them into their game, and if there's anything missing make up the new idea themselves.

 

[payn]

I've long felt that going to 10 levels would be a bonus. Though, I'm not really a fan of high tier epic fantasy so it suits my taste. Looking at D&D now, it seems they went depth and will slowly go with breadth forward. I'm not sure what the hunt is exactly here, unless of course, you dont like 5E in its current state?

 

[Oofta]

First, I enjoy playing and running games up to 20th level. I think it's interesting to challenge people at that level and the types of stories and the options I have are part of the fun. The zero to legendary hero is also part of the fun. In 5E the game has actually held together pretty well for me up to and including level 20.

I also know they're discussing tweaking high level play and giving PCs and DMs more options. PCs get cool abilities sooner, DMs are going to have more high level monsters. It seems like they are finding that there is a demand for high level play. Some of the ideas of how high people want to play may have been based on availability of player material and obstacles to high level play in previous editions. I think one of the toughest things from a developer's perspective for modules is that the breadth of options and playstyles is so enormous at high levels. I can keep things interesting for my group, but that's because I know their strengths and weaknesses. Writing generic modules for high level groups is far more difficult than for low ones.

Second, when it comes to this kind of stuff I think the proof is in the pudding for WOTC. The goal of the company is to make a successful product. They've succeeded amazingly well at that. Could a different approach have worked better? How much of 5E's success is just luck and timing? Who knows. But what they did, how D&D is built, has pretty much always worked well enough to keep the game at the top of the heap.

Last, but not least, whether or not people agree with your thoughts has little or nothing to do with whether or not you're crazy.

 

[TwoSix]

All told though, I think it's absolutely on the right track. Personally, I've been most fond of presenting it in the form of shorter classes, that one only takes for the duration of a given tier, before selecting another one, maybe with some sensible progression groupings.

This is definitely my favorite approach for a class based game, which we've seen in games like Shadow of the Demon Lord.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I feel that the OP is trying to design a solution to a problem that is not a design problem.
It is more of a cultural problem, established practise in the hobby is that campaigns start at level 1 or level 3 and proceed from there. This results in a natural breakup of a campaign at around the time that the party have reached somewhere from levels 7 to 15.
This also meant that module and adventure path creators starting designing their product to cater to this fact.

Now, I believe that the reason for these limits were that the majority of games were face to face and small groups. Small groups, I believe, encourage a more protagonist style suited to the modern Adventure Path.
A more club orientated West Marches style campaign, would eventually see more high level play.
Online play will also enable longer campaigns as the logistics of getting the group together is much easier.

However, now the short AP is kind of locked in and this limits high level play. The issue here, is (both in my opinion and my limited experience) the lack of material and guidance for high level play is, that groups that attempt high level play have DMs that lack experience in creating their own material, so there is that issue. The game has pretty poor official advice on encounter creation and the gaming population has a diversity of views as to encounter balance.
The game is pretty gonzo at high levels, some people do not like gonzo.
All of this means that the first time one tries high level play the experience is likely to be unsatisfactory. More material would encourage experimentation.

From a designer perspective the best way to encourage high level play is to write adventure that cover high levels. In particular adventure paths that start higher than level 3. Level 5 to 12 and level 7 to 16 APs would be very helpful in breaking groups out of low level play.
Add in some AP for levels 12 to 20 and you are golden.
These would not be bigger time commitments than the current APs, get people playing high level play and when survey time comes around people commenting on high level powers and encounter building would have some real experience to call upon.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I feel there are many ways to skin this. There is no one right way.
@EzekielRaiden's idea seems to address the multiclassing issue quite well, far better than the feat option we have now.
@Maxperson is right in that we'd lose a vital section of the game for some of us.

But ultimately the concern is the power curve, that feels off (from a worldbuilding aspect). Similar to some other current threads at the moment at least two that I can think of, both of which deal with magic and their comparison to martial.

What D&D suffers from is not having enough in-built levers (from my view point). Too many of us, too many playstyles to cater for.

Cantrip options. Hit Point bloat. Spell cost. Maintaining Bounded Accuracy in a system with Expertise and Magic Item plusses. Food, Lighting, Travel, Natural Hazards can easily be overcome, Bag of Holding....etc

In the end, D&D has always been one for the Tinkerers.
I'm curious if the guys that play the independent games tinker with the rules with their games as much as the D&Ders. I seriously doubt they do.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I feel there are many ways to skin this. There is no one right way.
@EzekielRaiden's idea seems to address the multiclassing issue quite well, far better than the feat option we have now.
@Maxperson is right in that we'd lose a vital section of the game for some of us.

But ultimately what is the concern is the power curve, that feels off. Similar to some other current threads at the moment at least two that I can think of, both of which deal with magic and their comparison to martial.

What D&D suffers from is not having enough in-built levers (from my view point). Too many of us, too many playstyles to cater for.

Cantrip options. Hit Point bloat. Spell cost. Maintaining Bounded Accuracy in a system with Expertise and Magic Item plusses.

In the end, D&D has always been one for the Tinkerers.
I'm curious if the guys that play the independent games tinker with the rules with their games as much as the D&Ders. I seriously doubt they do.

This brings us back to the playstyle modules that Mike Mearls talked about back in the day. We are going to see some of this with the alternate takes on 5e by third parties, though whether their mechanics can be separated from their game to be used in another game.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you have any actual survey data to back it up? Because unless you do, I'm going to go with the survey data. D&D Beyond is just the newest iteration thereof. Believe me, I wish high-level D&D were more common. I find low-level D&D boring and doubly anxious (in the sense of "I want to get to the--mechanically--good stuff," and in the sense of "oh boy, yet another chance to die for stupid, pointless reasons without achieving anything or getting anywhere, scrapping yet another fun story...")

A survey? No. Do I believe that I hit 12 natural 20's in a row, which is a 1 in 4,096,000,000,000,000 chance? No. I'm not that lucky. And I've played in at LEAST a dozen groups over the years, all of which played games into the teens.