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

[nevin]

IDK what we were doing wrong, but our average high level combat took about as much time as a low level combat. Occasionally, it might take 45-60 min to finish the entire combat if we are unprepared or getting our butts kicked and need to regroup and refocus. Thats like 1 out of 6 combats though.

what i've found over the years is that most players I've played with get slower the more options they have. The min maxers and detail oriented ones seem to be the worst. I'm sure a lot of the blame is on DM's me included that let them take so much time but also if a lot of high level spells are being cast then things tend to get hinky, adjudications have to be made and sometimes that slows it down as well.

It can be sped up but the players have to accept that they have to make thier decisions quickly and deal with the fact that they may make suboptimal decisions in the heat of battle. I also find MMO players current and former tend to be the worst being used to planning perfection in thier play they have a hard time not being able to do that at the table.

 

[payn]

what i've found over the years is that most players I've played with get slower the more options they have. The min maxers and detail oriented ones seem to be the worst. I'm sure a lot of the blame is on DM's me included that let them take so much time but also if a lot of high level spells are being cast then things tend to get hinky, adjudications have to be made and sometimes that slows it down as well.

It can be sped up but the players have to accept that they have to make thier decisions quickly and deal with the fact that they may make suboptimal decisions in the heat of battle. I also find MMO players current and former tend to be the worst being used to planning perfection in thier play they have a hard time not being able to do that at the table.

IDK, ive seen MMO players totally on the ball and able to chew through any amount of options in no time flat. I dont think its what folks are familiar with or prefer as I have seen analysis paralysis in every type of game. Its more on the person than their tastes in gaming, ime.

I do have a tendency to enforce knowing your PC and options. If you want to have a wide toolkit or bring the latest hotness to the table, you at least need to know how it works for your PC. Thats the bear min. Yes, as GM ill help you learn and get it rolling on the table, but if you cant even explain the basics of what you are tying to do without cracking a text, you didnt do your homework and will be getting strong stink eye.

 

[nevin]

well not all tables get to have experienced players that are "hardcore" and know their stuff. And at some tables I've played at push the Analysis paralysis players too hard and you don't have a table anymore. Sometimes you get what you get.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I would say we rarely see high level play because most players seem to think that you have to start at a low level and work your way up to high level. However; the vast majority of high-level games I've seen (which aren't many because they're rare) were played with characters created at high level with magic item and gold piece budgets.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I think establishing a routine is probably the trick to keeping things running. We play every other week, for not more than 3 hours, same day, same time. Any we only postpone if two or more players can’t make it.

It's also important to actually have a good game. When the game is good people will prioritize attending the game over other fun opportunities that appear.

If you have a game that happens consistently every other week for years, then it's probably a good game

 

[Mercurius]

Probably has been said, but I think the biggest reason is that most campaigns just peter out before reaching a high level.

Secondary factors are probably related to complexity - on both the DM and player side.

Tertiary factors might have to do with ennui, boredom, wanting to start afresh.

 

[Maxperson]

Did WoTC ever give official stats for Elminster, Simbul and characters like that? Cause if i'm not mistaken, PC and NPC/Monsters aren't following same creation rules in 5e.

And while they did cap levels at 20 by not having concrete rules for epic level games and advancement, beside epic boons, that unofficially just means that once you hit lv 20, you are done with game. You are top kahuna, big boss. Easy retirement unless there is world ending stuff you need to sort out.

I don't think they have for 5e. What I'm looking at is that in 3e, players could become as powerful as those two. In 5e the pinnacle of power is 20th level, so that has to be around what Elminster and the Simbul would be.

 

[Maxperson]

I feel like published adventures are what (or should) show a DM how to use all the tools they're provided with- for example, a good high level adventure should show how to incorporate high level pc abilities in it. It should assume and require that they have high level resources to navigate the adventure. Otherwise, a DM (especially a novice to high level play) might just make an adventure that could be a low level adventure if you swapped out the monsters for lower level foes.

I disagree. Teaching the DMs how to run high level campaigns outside of the rulebooks would be a mistake. They can't assume people are going to want to run published adventures, and it would seem like a cash grab to tell DMs in the DMG to buy other books if they want to learn how to run the game at the levels listed in the PHB.

No. They need to teach the DMs how to build high level campaigns in the DMG or they have failed at their job in teaching new DMs.

 

[tetrasodium]

I do miss the days when a mage had to spend a week or more memorizing all their spells if you got to that level. I may sound stupid but it really drove home how bad off you were going to be if you chose wrong. It's why I laugh at all the threads on how wizards are overpowered. I tend to play casters and in high level games I find I'm more often whining I didn't memorize the spell I need than ending the DM's great plan. I suspect most of those guys have either never played a caster at high level or played where thier DM didn't make them right down their choices and force them to stick with them.

That kind of 2e style prep would make for a super useful optional rule, especially if it went back to easy recovery of low level slots at the cost of cantrips. Even 3.x maintaining "I could do it tomorrow" made the huge difference between having it immediately & having it after a day of things going on or a day+,time to get somewhere safe where I the rest is not interrupted

 

[Guest 7037866]

IME it takes a year to reach tier 3 and then another year to play into tier 4 (maybe through it).

At over 50 now, as much as I might enjoy the "current campaign" and PCs in it, around that 1 year mark I am more interested in moving on. Generally if I push through that urge to move on, it is almost solely for the players' benefit to enjoy high-level play--not mine.

Oddly, in AD&D, that never happened. We played campaigns for 2-5 years IRL before switching, of course we also had 2-3 different campaigns running often with separate DMs back then, so the constant switch-ups helped keep it feeling fresh.