D&D 5E Why Do Higher Levels Get Less Play?

[Upper_Krust]

High level content doesn't sell.

They made it for previous editions.

BE part of BECMI sold well. CMI part not so much. They're less complex than say 3E and 4E which had high level play. BE has individual products selling more than modern editions phb.

High level adventures were made they don't make top 30 type lists or big sales numbers.

Paizo also commented on it.

I agree its niche although I'd be surprised if a 5th Edition Epic Tier Handbook didn't sell better than certain other books they have released over the past few years.

 

[NN]

But there is nothing wrong with just wanting to have epic anime style massive collateral damage battles against planet-sized monsters...and take their stuff.

I think trying to accommodate that game and level-one-beating-up-goblins-with-a-stick in the same ruleset is a fool’s errand.

 

[Reynard]

I think trying to accommodate that game and level-one-beating-up-goblins-with-a-stick in the same ruleset is a fool’s errand.

There have been well designed games that do it since the 1970s.

 

[GrimCo]

I agree. Which is why in my subsequent post I stated you still have to have those 'munchkin +10 swords": you still need the crazy epic monsters, ridiculous weapons and artifacts, higher dimensions to explore, insanely epic spells. That's where the fun lies.

I would say that's where D&D fun lies. In it's core, dnd is about tactical level skirmishes. Be it against lowly goblins or demon lords, it's still mostly revolves around combats. Mechanics and character abilities are 90% combat oriented.

Not everyone wants to run their own religion or build their own divine realm. I have those options and I would advocate you do, because it makes the events more personal.

I have. It's called Houses of the Blooded. If my players want to play domains, politics, intrigue and such on grand scale in fantasy setting, HoB does it way better than d&d. Cause it's designed for that kind of play. D&D isn't and has almost no mechanical rule support for it.

But there is nothing wrong with just wanting to have epic anime style massive collateral damage battles against planet-sized monsters...and take their stuff. I have that catered for too.

Agree.

 

[NN]

There have been well designed games that do it since the 1970s.

Like?

 

[Upper_Krust]

tbf superman is a boring dork

Aspirational Heroes (Superman, Thor) are not for everyone and cater more towards those positive idealists who see the glass as half full rather than half empty. They deliver uplifting stories featuring positive role-models.

Tragic Heroes (ie, Batman, Spiderman) are certainly more relatable, prone to failure. Their stories have lower-lows (emotionally) and thus potentially more of a contrast. They deliver tragic stories featuring conflicted protagonists.

Anti-heroes (ie. Punisher, Wolverine) are typically violent psychopaths willing to 'go the extra mile' to get the job done, but often hunted as Criminals. Their bloody stories are often tales of vengeance.

To answer your statement (Superman is a boring dork) I would say if you prefer Anti-heroes or Tragic Heroes, then the Aspirational hero archetype might well seem boring to you....and vice versa.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I think trying to accommodate that game and level-one-beating-up-goblins-with-a-stick in the same ruleset is a fool’s errand.

Well they do say there's a thin line between genius and insanity.

 

[Reynard]

Like?

Superhero 2044 came out in 1978. By the early 80s, there were other supers games, as well as Gamma World which covered a wide (if chaotic) mix of power levels. By the mid 80s, universal systems began to appear, including Hero and GURPS, both of which allowed for essentially limitless power level variety under a single ruleset. Over time since then, many "generic" or "toolkit" games have appeared, with varying degrees of success at allowing for wide power levels. Many are superhero games, but not all. D&D itself has integrated wide power level differentiation in many of its editions, including BECMI and 3E.

 

[Upper_Krust]

10% probably isn't enough though.

If a 3rd party is doing it their product is really lined at 5% of whatever number they normally for for a 3pp of their size and appeal.

If that 5% (or whatever) is starving for content, then maybe they'll be more likely to 'bite' though?

 

[Maxperson]

The level of effort in ignoring the point is painful. It doesn't matter what they were deliberately making design choices to simplify for whole not considering the results of those deliberate choices on other areas of play. The end result of deliberate design choices in 5e is still that only the one one style of high level gameplay has the mechanical tools needed.

The fact that I can run a high level campaign with the tools provided only in the core 5e books proves that to be false. There are plenty high level giants, dragons and outsides for me to use. My preference for there to be more variety is only that. A preference, not a lack of tools.

The problem is that 5e gives zero training on how to use those tools and new DMs are almost sure to screw it up trying to run high level games the same way they run low level games, and that doesn't work.