D&D (2024) Do We Really Need Levels 11-20?

[Parmandur]

It plausibly comes to who decides to end the campaign and why. The sense I get is that most of the time it's the GM, and in the case of D&D it's usually because they don't want to run any higher level than [X]. I'm homebrewing my campaigns all the way to 20th level (in the current case with Epic Boons, even).

In my experience, it is because people have new ideas theybwant to explore, and by Level 10 have an itch for something new.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure how Wizards can track my campaigns to make these kind of declarations. I'm guessing them mean online campaigns similar to their character generators. Seems a bit flawed in their assertions. If I took every campaign (whatever that means) and push them together, that number feels right. I recall starting a campaign when I was in middle school that lasted one night and another that lasted 4-5 nights until someone moved away. I can see where online campaigns might run into the same thing and last only a few nights.

Nowadays, my home campaigns last about 2 years and go to levels 13-15ish before starting a new campaign.

WotC doesn't need perfect data on every campaign in the world to make conclusions on what people are doing.

Literally everyone posting here is a statistical outlier, so frankly none of our experiences necessarily reveal too much lol.

 

[prabe]

In my experience, it is because people have new ideas theybwant to explore, and by Level 10 have an itch for something new.

Funny. I've never needed to end a campaign to do something new, but my campaigns do tend to be free-written PC-driven picaresques.

 

[Parmandur]

Funny. I've never needed to end a campaign to do something new, but my campaigns do tend to be free-written PC-driven picaresques.

Stuff like "you know what, I think I want to play a Warlock juat starting out."

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Every time a game doesn't support higher levels, I'm disappointed it doesn't. Every time I play one of these games, we stop playing before these levels. I think it's something I just like having in case of. But I definitely need to stop letting it affect my reading of games.

 

[prabe]

Stuff like "you know what, I think I want to play a Warlock juat starting out."

My experience is that even when players have new character ideas they wanna poke at, they're usually really invested in the characters they're playing, and they want to see those characters get some things resolved before moving on.

 

[Parmandur]

My experience is that even when players have new character ideas they wanna poke at, they're usually really invested in the characters they're playing, and they want to see those characters get some things resolved before moving on.

Sure, and I'm not saying thwt doesn't happen. But the saturation point I normally see for that is 10-12, max.

 

[TwoSix]

No on the multiclassing. If I envision my character as a noble warrior, I don't want to have to become a wizard or rogue to keep playing. I'd rather the game just stop at 10th than do that.

Could always add an option to just gain a feat every level for people who are boring.

 

[prabe]

Sure, and I'm not saying thwt doesn't happen. But the saturation point I normally see for that is 10-12, max.

Normally what I see is a more narrative thing. "This character's things are all resolved." Not so much a mechanical thing. "I'm tired of this build." Of course, I played for years with a guy who flat didn't run to narrative resolutions, and I got tired of that--it's probably most of why I let campaigns run as long as I do.

 

[Parmandur]

Normally what I see is a more narrative thing. "This character's things are all resolved." Not so much a mechanical thing. "I'm tired of this build." Of course, I played for years with a guy who flat didn't run to narrative resolutions, and I got tired of that--it's probably most of why I let campaigns run as long as I do.

I hear ya, just saying that narrative steam has run out by that time, too.