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

[Maxperson]

Maxperson's quote. sorry. (edit) Absolutely. I've only done two save the world high level campaigns in the last 20 years. Those are rare for a reason, and that reason is that if the PCs fail, I don't have NPCs sweep in to the rescue. The world ends. High level play done organically from low to mid to high levels, tends to work itself out and be fun without world threatening crises.
I

I think the point got missed. It's ok if they fail. That just sets up the next game with the world in worse shape. The problem is if every game is a save the world, or universe game then it just becomes the pc's job. Clock in save the world clock out. a bit boring.

I think you missed that I was agreeing that failure is okay. I don't stop failure and most times if they fail some part of the world is in worse shape. I was talking about world ending threats. Those, well, end the world and then I have to make a new one or pick a different established setting.

Years ago, long before King Obould Many Arrows happened, I had orcs sweep down under a united leader from the same mountains into the same area of the Realms. The group was the only one who could have stopped him, and due to some really poor decision making on the part of the players, they failed. Later campaigns had to deal with an orc nation where much of the heartlands once stood. Eventually the orc nation failed and things mostly normalized in that region, but was a world disruption for years of real time game play.

It's also why game's where every challenge the pc's face is level appropriate are boring. Sometimes the hero's should kick the bandits ass and have a great night in the inn celebrating. Sometimes they should run in fear trying to decide which slow NPC they are going to sacrifice to the thing chasing them. (you know you don't have to outrun the bear just not be the slowest in the party. ) Anything that is done all the time just becomes normal.

Again, I agree. Not everything is level appropriate at high levels in my games. I think it's good for the PCs to struggle at time at high levels, but actually get to feel like they are high level at other times by riding roughshod over things like a group of giants that they would have struggled with at low and/or mid levels.

 

[MGibster]

That's an assumption that doesn't have any solid evidence that I've seen. A lot of games fall apart for a lot of reasons that don't have to do with fun, and a lot of DMs are therefore not experienced at running high level games, and any lack of fun is very likely to be the fault of the DM, more than the players just don't like it.

If 90% of the players aren't playing above level ten, it's not because campaigns fall apart before they get there. After all, it's just as easy to start a campaign at 10th level as it is to start one at 1st, 3rd, or even 5th level. When I said most people didn't find higher levels fun I was including DMs in there as well. The fact that only 10% of those who play D&D do so at higher levels is pretty good evidence in my book they don't find it fun. Is that the fault of the DM? Maybe. But, man, 90%?

 

[Maxperson]

If 90% of the players aren't playing above level ten, it's not because campaigns fall apart before they get there. After all, it's just as easy to start a campaign at 10th level as it is to start one at 1st, 3rd, or even 5th level. When I said most people didn't find higher levels fun I was including DMs in there as well. The fact that only 10% of those who play D&D do so at higher levels is pretty good evidence in my book they don't find it fun. Is that the fault of the DM? Maybe. But, man, 90%?

It's for a large variety of things. I clicked literally every box you had in the poll, including other. You can't just chalk it up to mostly dislike.

That means that it's also not just the fault of the DM. DM lack of interest in the same campaign from 1-20 does not equate to dislike of high level. Player lack of interest in the same character over 20 levels does not equate to dislike of high level. There are lots of reasons out there that don't involve dislike.

 

[kigmatzomat]

. After all, it's just as easy to start a campaign at 10th level as it is to start one at 1st, 3rd, or even 5th level.

Well there are rules covering equipment and backgrounds are 1st level.

For the other levels there are no rules. How many items should they have? What kind of contacts are appropriate? What social structures could exist for them to be part of? What kinds of ties should they have? What social ranks are appropriate for a level 5 wizard vs a level 10 wizard?

The 5e DMG has either nothing or but the barest material on those things, mostly tables of adjectives tied to die rolls.

Meanwhile the 3e DMG had breakdowns of wealth/magic items by level, discussed different approaches to conatraining magic items, then went into a class-by-class discussion of how PCs should be viewed by and interact with society, various power centers that could be present, an overview of how to generate a society (at least at a very high level) and to map out relationships.

Yeah, that was only a few pages, but it's pages that 5e doesn't have. There was probably more in the 3e DMG2, but that wasn't handy for me to check.

3e was a very opinionated system, with ideas on how the mechanics impact the settings run all through it. How common are PC classes? What level of PC is likely in this city? How much treasure will a CR9 encounter have? What is the typical wealth of an 11th level wizard? How many magic items will that wizard have? How many CR11 encounters would make that wizard 12th level?

3e had baselines. Lots of people didn't like them, but they provided a common place to start from. If you said "low magic items" it was in relation to a common definition everyone had. "Fast leveling" meant you wanted less than 13-ish encounters per level.

5e tries to have no opinion on how the system affects settings and says "Lah-la-lah, player rules are different lah-lah-lah game rules aren't economies lah-lah-lah" and it essentially throws all the effort of making anything make sense a DM problem. They further say "the game doesn't require any magic items so if you give them out and the CR mechanic fails, guess you gave out too many items, schmuck."

At low levels, no one has magic items. Easy-peasy. At higher levels....whelp. don't screw it up, schmuck.

I really like what they did with 5e, less granular than 3e, not as formulaic as 4e ADEU.

But jeez Louise, the DM support is somewhere between atrocious and non-existent. I sometimes think it's this bad because they think AI DMs will make human DMs no more than a prompt engineer, hoping to get a non-hallucinatory encounter.

But when the AI does hallucinate, it will be the prompt engineers fault for not catching it. The schmuck.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

If 90% of the players aren't playing above level ten, it's not because campaigns fall apart before they get there. After all, it's just as easy to start a campaign at 10th level as it is to start one at 1st, 3rd, or even 5th level.

Of course the reason can purely be because campaigns fall apart before they reach high level. High level play is really fun but not really if you just start off there.

Just because you technically could start watching a movie at the end doesn't mean that people "dislike movie endings" because they always want to start watching at the beginning

 

[MGibster]

It's for a large variety of things. I clicked literally every box you had in the poll, including other. You can't just chalk it up to mostly dislike.

For the record, I didn't create the poll.

That means that it's also not just the fault of the DM. DM lack of interest in the same campaign from 1-20 does not equate to dislike of high level.

It isn't? Generally speaking, when I have a lack of interest in doing something it's because I don't like it. I might not hate it, but there are other things I'd rather be doing.

For the other levels there are no rules. How many items should they have? What kind of contacts are appropriate? What social structures could exist for them to be part of? What kinds of ties should they have? What social ranks are appropriate for a level 5 wizard vs a level 10 wizard?

What kind of contacts are appropriate, what social structures exist, and what ties characters should have isn't really something that's answered very well for 1st level characters let alone 5th, 10th, or 15th level characters. I don't think you'll see many novice players and DMs starting their first campaign at 10th level. I don't think lack of guidance is the biggest problem here.

5e tries to have no opinion on how the system affects settings and says "Lah-la-lah, player rules are different lah-lah-lah game rules aren't economies lah-lah-lah" and it essentially throws all the effort of making anything make sense a DM problem. They further say "the game doesn't require any magic items so if you give them out and the CR mechanic fails, guess you gave out too many items, schmuck."

Given that D&D settings have never made a whole lot of sense when examined closely and compared to the rules, this is probably a wise decision on WotC's part.

Of course the reason can purely be because campaigns fall apart before they reach high level. High level play is really fun but not really if you just start off there.

Again, why wouldn't campaigns just start at level 10 instead of level 1 or 3? What makes level 10 less fun if you start there rather than work your way up from level 1?

Just because you technically could start watching a movie at the end doesn't mean that people "dislike movie endings" because they always want to start watching at the beginning

Weird analogy. This would be more akin to people watching the first half of a movie and turning it off because the second half is boring. For some reason people the vast majority of D&D players aren't playing passed 10th level. While I doubt there's a single answer, I don't think it's because nobody wants to start at 10 or that campaigns simply peter out. I think it's because the game isn't as fun. They'd rather go back and play 1st through 10th. Okay, maybe not 1st and 2nd.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't? Generally speaking, when I have a lack of interest in doing something it's because I don't like it. I might not hate it, but there are other things I'd rather be doing.

It absolute does not equate, even a little bit. Becoming bored playing a fighter for levels 1-9 does not mean that I would not enjoy playing a wizard for levels 11-20.

Losing interest in the class =/= dislike of high levels. You are engaging in a classic correlation does not equal causation mistake.

 

[MGibster]

It absolute does not equate, even a little bit. Becoming bored playing a fighter for levels 1-9 does not mean that I would not enjoy playing a wizard for levels 11-20.

I think we're just talking passed one another at this point. At the time the poll was taken, only 10% of D&D play goes beyond level 10. I don't think players becoming bored with whatever class, or classes, they've been playing from levels 1-10 is a significant deterrent to high level play. My theory is that it's primarily the game play itself. Maybe it's because it's harder for the DM to come up with challenges, maybe players have too many options to keep track of, maybe it's just too much bookkeeping for everyone, but something is preventing people from playing those higher level games. If groups wanted to avoid growing bored with their character class, they could easily start at level 10 instead of level 3.

 

[Maxperson]

I think we're just talking passed one another at this point. At the time the poll was taken, only 10% of D&D play goes beyond level 10. I don't think players becoming bored with whatever class, or classes, they've been playing from levels 1-10 is a significant deterrent to high level play. My theory is that it's primarily the game play itself. Maybe it's because it's harder for the DM to come up with challenges, maybe players have too many options to keep track of, maybe it's just too much bookkeeping for everyone, but something is preventing people from playing those higher level games. If groups wanted to avoid growing bored with their character class, they could easily start at level 10 instead of level 3.

Look at the poll. Choices 1, 5, and 6 are all "losing interest." They received quite a few votes.

 

[GrimCo]

High level play requires decent amount of system mastery on both DM and player side. On the player side, people need to know what their characters are capable and what tools are at their disposal, otherwise, turns can take forever. Classes in 5e generally have more stuff they can do compared to their equivalents in 3x or prior (4e is special case).

On the DM side, encounter design. You need to know how good your party is. If you have party of optimized characters who have great synergy of abilities, they can punch above their level. If you have sub optimal party, you need to adjust for that.

When it comes to monsters, there are almost no options for high CR regular humanoids since 5e uses different rules for PC creation and monster creation. In 3.x, wanna buff that Orc chieftain? Slap him a template and few class levels. High CR monsters are mostly outsiders and dragons (per MM). Other option is swarming them with lower cr stuff, but then it's fine tuning how many to be challenge and not boring grind fest.

Also, it's about stories you like to tell and theme and vibe of adventure you are going for.