I’ve been thinking about this question in terms of what Tier 1 play actually represents. The poll focuses on how long characters “should” stay between levels 1 and 4, but it feels like the real conversation is about what we think Tier 1 is for. In 5e, there’s a strong cultural assumption that Tier 1 is the onboarding zone and the “real” campaign begins once characters hit level 4 or 5. That framing shapes how DMs approach pacing, and it shapes how players expect the early game to feel.
What I find interesting is how narrow that expectation has become. Tier 1 isn’t mechanically deep, but it’s not devoid of narrative weight. The kinds of stories you can tell at low levels—local stakes, community-focused arcs, problems that don’t require heroic firepower—have a tone and texture that disappears once you scale into Tier 2 and beyond. The challenge is that a lot of groups see those stories as a temporary prologue rather than a meaningful mode of play.
For me, this got clearer when I compared how I approached 4e. In 4e, level 1 characters were already fully realized: capable, tactically interesting, and hard to accidentally break. You didn’t need to “wait for the game to start.” The design supported immediate investment, which meant that staying in the early levels wasn’t a bottleneck—it was just the starting point of the long arc. Because of that, the pacing question wasn’t about clearing a tutorial. It was about the kind of story the table wanted, and how quickly they felt like growing into bigger threats.
5e pushes in the opposite direction. The fragility of early characters, the limited toolkits, and the narrow threat bands all contribute to a sense that you’re moving toward something rather than already in something. When you combine that with the community narrative—“Tier 1 is the warm-up, Tier 2 is the sweet spot”—you get this pressure to accelerate. And the irony is that most campaigns never make it far past Tier 2 anyway. So we end up sprinting through the early game to reach a tier we were going to reach regardless, and often concluding the story before the next tier even begins.
That’s why I answered the poll the way I did. I don’t think there’s a universal timer for when characters should reach level 4. In my experience, it depends entirely on the expectations and experience level at the table. If players want the “zero to hero” arc, then taking time in Tier 1 is part of the point. If they want immediate competency or they’re already familiar with the system, then starting higher or moving quickly makes sense. And if the group is more interested in grounded, local-level stories, there’s no reason Tier 1 can’t support a full and satisfying campaign on its own.
For me, the choice isn’t mechanical pacing so much as narrative framing. Once I know what kind of story the table thinks it’s telling, the “right” pace becomes obvious.
