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

[mamba]

As I said in my last post, for me to hit that many consecutive 5% chance of occurring groups is at least one in four quadrillion. Basically I rolled a dozen plus consecutive natural 20's. I've never seen a group that only played to low or mid levels.

Where do the 5% come from? not sure what statistic this is based on.

I also am not sure you being in several groups that play to level 20 is the same as rolling consecutive 20s on a d20 in probability. You might just be in those circles that play to 20, thereby drastically increasing your chances of doing so. If you found a different group of players in a different town every time, and you were not the DM, then I'd say your chances should be whatever the average probability is (still not sure that is 5%), but if you basically played games with a subset of players out of a pool of 10 or so, that overlap in their groups and all play to 20, that is very different.

Ultimately, I find anecdotal evidence not very convincing either way. If there is an official statistic, then I'd say those numbers are a lot closer to reality and you are simply an outlier, whether you are aware of it or not. Take for example people playing D&D adventures, most end around level 12, so by default those guys cannot play to level 20, if their group even makes it to the end of the adventure. That is about half the players right there, unable to ever get to level 20.

 

[Maxperson]

Where do the 5% come from? not sure what statistic this is based on.

The D&D Beyond numbers. 5% go to 13+ level.

I also am not sure you being in several groups that play to level 20 is the same as rolling consecutive 20s on a d20 in probability. You might just be in those circles that play to 20, thereby drastically increasing your chances of doing so. If you found a different group of players in a different town every time, and you were not the DM, then I'd say your chances should be whatever the average probability is (still not sure that is 5%), but if you basically played games with a subset of players out of a pool of 10 or so, that overlap in their groups and all play to 20, that is very different.

Not level 20. To the teens and higher like I've been posting. As for circles, it involves groups of people that I've met at game stores, conventions and more. It's not like it's only my same group rotating DMs for 40 years.

Ultimately, I find anecdotal evidence not very convincing either way. If there is an official statistic, then I'd say those numbers are a lot closer to reality and you are simply an outlier, whether you are aware of it or not. Take for example people playing D&D adventures, most end around level 12, so by default those guys cannot play to level 20, if their group even makes it to the end of the adventure. That is about half the players right there, unable to ever get to level 20.

Again, I never said 20.

 

[mamba]

The D&D Beyond numbers. 5% go to 13+ level.

do you have a link? did not find this data

Not level 20. To the teens and higher like I've been posting.

I guess I based that on

If even 5% of players reach high level, that's still millions. They should keep it so that those of us who do play to 20 can have fun at high levels.

rather than the first sentence. Yes, 5% making it to 13+ does feel a little low, but I have zero data to back that up

 

[Maxperson]

do you have a link? did not find this data


I guess I based that on

rather than the first sentence. Yes, 5% making it to 13+ does feel a little low, but I have zero data to back that up

Sure. My games and those I've played go to 13-20, with most ending at 16-18. But we do go to 20. That's not the same as ONLY going to 20, and it ignores the multiple very recent posts here in this thread that have said teen to 20 and 13-20. I mean, if you want to cherry pick something that doesn't say "Only to 20" you can, but it's not helpful.

 

[Amrûnril]

I would definitely prefer a game focused on low to mid level play (though I think my ideal approach would actually be something like 20 levels of customization with 10 current levels worth of power scaling).

I think the depth/breadth framing here could actually be reversed, though. In my mind, having more levels in the game is adding breadth, while improving a more limited range of levels is adding depth.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Join the club, then, for people who want, say, tactical combat.

And, seriously, "millions"? 5% is not "millions" with D&D. 5% is at best a million. If you're lucky.

Are we assuming that the people who want to play high level D&D is no more than 5%? Serious question.

 

[mamba]

mean, if you want to cherry pick something that doesn't say "Only to 20" you can, but it's not helpful.

it wasn't meant to cherry pick, but to explain how I arrived at 'playing to 20'. I accepted that you meant 13+ and even agreed that 5% feels low for that

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah, this what I do. Make the game the way I want it.

I do like your ideas in the context of a new game though @EzekielRaiden . Big fan of the BECMI model.

 

[mamba]

Are we assuming that the people who want to play high level D&D is no more than 5%? Serious question.

No idea, but apparently the data shows that only 5% or so do. In theory there could be more that want to, but the group falls apart before they get there

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Your problem is that you are assuming those are independent events. They aren't. At the absolute least, they have your active interest making it happen, not to mention the "people tend to game with like-minded people" effect. That's kind of a glaring hole in your logic here...

Are we assuming that the people who want to play high level D&D is no more than 5%? Serious question.

While I imagine the active interest varies depending on exactly what level is reached, yeah, I generally would not be surprised at those bumbers.

Again, I wish this weren't true. I find low level D&D painfully boring mechanically (even 4e, where I prefer starting somewhere around level 3-6.) Trying to convince 5e DMs to consider starting at anything above 1 is like pulling teeth. Trying to convince them to start above level 3 is like trying to pull hen's teeth—there's nothing to pull, you simply won't make headway.

Would this mean actually making levels 1-2 playable or would they still be secret 0 levels and now we only have 8 levels to play in?

If we're dialing in, I'd cut off the bottom 2 and top 3 levels instead.

Well, I have long explicitly supported creating true "novice levels," but in the context of this proposal it might be more complicated.

Perhaps a preliminary system inspired by 13A's "incremental advance" rules? That is, define stats for a "novice character" or the like, and then a set of rules for how to slowly bring that "novice" character up to speed. Picking up an attack bonus here, a skill proficiency there, etc. Perhaps even include support for leaving your class undefined at first and letting it evolve toward something over time (e.g. you might pick up a single cantrip as a preliminary option, but ultimately end up abandoning it for barbarian and Rage.)

Then, as stated, later on make an actual full-throated "go from absolute zero to basic hero" block of however many levels (perhaps 10 as well) to give folks jonesing for that feel an even more effective experience (or at least a different option if the default novice rules don't give what they want.)