D&D General Level 1-20 and the gulf between aspirations and reality

[Umbran]

I don't have any data to back this up (or that I'm willing to look up at the moment), but from what I gather most campaigns last less than a year and break up by 10th level.

I believe back in the 3e days, WotC's research suggested that they should design such that a campaign might reach into the upper tier after 18 months of play, if that's a help.

So why do publishers still design systems and publish campaigns with a default assumption of level 1-20? Why make the default something that only a fraction of groups will experience?

Well, only D&D derivatives use levels 1-20. They probably continue to do so for reasons of tradition and to serve the minority who do go that high. I mean, just because most campaigns don't go that high, does that mean they should make that level just disappear entirely?

What published 5e campaigns assume 1-20? None of the WotC major adventure books do that, do they? Ther Paizo adventure paths I thought largely went up to 16 or 17th level.

 

[jayoungr]

I don't think there would be 20 levels if there wasn't a tradition of it.

Well--I think that no matter where they set the level cap, some people are going to want to go beyond it. But I think 10 levels is not enough. Setting the cap at 20 allows printed adventures to go up to level 15, which works (IMO) fine, and then there are a few levels left over for individual tables to finish up storylines related to the particular PCs in an adventure and retire comfortably by level 20.

shrug

 

[generic]

Well--I think that no matter where they set the level cap, some people are going to want to go beyond it. But I think 10 levels is not enough. Setting the cap at 20 allows printed adventures to go up to level 15, which works (IMO) fine, and then there are a few levels left over for individual tables to finish up storylines related to the particular PCs in an adventure and retire comfortably by level 20.

shrug

In my experience, parties with APL 13 or higher can challenge pretty much anything in the 5E Monster manual, leaving time for a few fun adventures to wrap up around level 15 or 16, with an allowance for extensions beyond that.

I agree with your post. I don't really see why having 20 levels is badwrongsacredcow.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, only D&D derivatives use levels 1-20. They probably continue to do so for reasons of tradition ...

...hm... y'know, the system is d20 - could it just be a bit of intuitive symmetry?

5e is a d20 game.
Your stats top out at 20.
Your level goes from 1 to 20.

?

 

[Umbran]

...hm... y'know, the system is d20 - could it just be a bit of intuitive symmetry?

If you are going to pick an arbitrary number, there's worse reasons.

 

[Oofta]

Of all the things to complain about, this has to be one of the oddest in my opinion. With 5E we have a game that runs pretty well up to 20th level, something we couldn't do with previous editions in my experience. With 4E, individual rounds of combat could take an hour or more. In 3.5 at about 15th level, a properly built spell caster had no need for the rest of the party. I'm sure editions before that had games that got to high levels, I just never saw one since we didn't use gold for XP.

But we finally have a version that plays decent at high level. It's not perfect (what is?) but it works.

Why does anybody care? If you don't use it, ignore it. Why complain about it? What would change if the game only went to 10th level other than people would want to stretch out the lower levels and have most games stop by 6th level?

 

[Haffrung]

Well, only D&D derivatives use levels 1-20. They probably continue to do so for reasons of tradition and to serve the minority who do go that high. I mean, just because most campaigns don't go that high, does that mean they should make that level just disappear entirely?

But there is a downside to going that high with published campaigns: Much of the appeal of these mega-campaigns comes from the narrative arc of reaching the big bad, defeating it, and concluding the epic. But if only a fraction of groups reach than conclusion, most groups have an unsatisfying campaign.

I'd guess the number of groups that fail to finish say a level 1-14 campaign (and thus don't get the full enjoyment from it) greatly exceeds the number of groups who reach 14th level and are disappointed the campaign doesn't continue.

What published 5e campaigns assume 1-20? None of the WotC major adventure books do that, do they? Ther Paizo adventure paths I thought largely went up to 16 or 17th level.

The 5E campaigns reach level 11 to 14. So WotC does seem to know its market. The Paizo APs have traditionally gone to 16th or 17th, but with PF2 they're going to 20th. I suspect one unacknowledged reason Paizo are fine with their APs going higher than all but a fraction of groups reach is because half the people who buy APs aren't actively gaming. If a campaign is just reading material, what does it matter if you'll never play it completion?

 

[Umbran]

I'd guess the number of groups that fail to finish say a level 1-14 campaign (and thus don't get the full enjoyment from it) greatly exceeds the number of groups who reach 14th level and are disappointed the campaign doesn't continue.

There are probably two basic reasons for gaming groups to fall apart 1) The play is not fun for whatever reason, and 2) The group suffers an Attack of Real Life, so that people can no longer continue to play.

In the first case, folks weren't satisfied by the game, so they aren't disappointed about not continuing. In the second, they are engaged with their game, and are going to be disappointed play doesn't continue, period. The size of the adventures is not really relevant. If you were enjoying play, when it ends, you are probably in the middle of something when it dies.

 

[dave2008]

What published 5e campaigns assume 1-20? None of the WotC major adventure books do that, do they? Ther Paizo adventure paths I thought largely went up to 16 or 17th level.

I believe Dungeon of the Mad Mage goes to lvl 20.

 

[Lanefan]

I've never understood the rationale for the game having what amounts to an overall level cap; whether it be 20 (3e, 5e) or 30 (4e).

Why not make it open-ended, but with advancement greatly slowing after about 15th (instead of speeding up - a truly baffling decision by the 5e designers!) such that if a campaign does manage to keep going for years or even decades the system can still handle it. Better yet, greatly slow advancement down across the board such that, if desired, two or more APs can be run back-to-back in the same campaign using the same PCs; note this would require releasing a few APs that start in the 7th-12th range and go from there.