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

[Zardnaar]

tbf superman is a boring dork

I don't get him either.

Generally don't like super hero movies and they're repetitive these days.

The ones more action based eg Dark Knight trilogy I like better.

 

[Umbran]

It's hard to sell products for parts of the game the designers actively don't care about.

People keep asserting that, as if it is a basic failing of the designers.

But, there's an observable point that D&D is hardly different in this regard. Most games don't go "from Zero to Nation-leader/god". And the couple that do* still see players fall off before the upper echelons of power are reached.

That's a solid enough pattern that there's probably good reasons for it beyond, "they just don't support it."


*say, World of Darkness - upper-end Mages and Vampires are incredibly potent.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Thus, most of the essential character exploration can be done without the complications and distractions of very high power play. This is apt to be a notable part of why high level play doesn't get much attention - because it isn't asking fundamentally new questions.

Regarding asking fundamentally new questions
This is why I enjoy Planescape and specifically Sigil before the Faction War for higher level play...because while the lesser questions of theology are answered in the Prime, the Sigil factions provide a whole new set of competing ideologies which goes beyond which deity a character decides to serve and why.
It creates a new path of character exploration...

 

[GrimCo]

They had support from around a dozen CR2-5 creatures. Hunger of Hadar and world tree barbarian.

I once used 25 cr 1 creatures as a encounter for level 17 party. They came in waves of 5 round after round, but in xenomorph style ( from different directions in all 3 dimensions). Some spells that are AoE don't have description of area effect in all 3 dimensions, or it's kind of vague (30 feet cones i'm looking at you). But, point is, that combat took time. Sure, they did little damage on individual basis, fighter could drop one with every attack, but they still used up lot more resources and it took way longer than fight vs two big monsters.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'd say that morality is the difference. That morality does not necessarily manifest as Supes taking on benevolent administrative management duties for the nation, though.

"Yes, Superman, you saved us from Darkseid. Now, can you help us balance the budget?"

Perhaps morality is the last link in the chain that snaps with the bomb in injustice, but it doesn't change the result of losing his obligations and responsibilities [to the world] with the death of Lois and the unborn baby. Ironically Superman probably balances the budget while creating a utopia acting like PCs do when they notice longer consider the world & those in it as something that they might need to rely on

 

[Minigiant]

People keep asserting that, as if it is a basic failing of the designers.

But, there's an observable point that D&D is hardly different in this regard. Most games don't go "from Zero to Nation-leader/god". And the couple that do* still see players fall off before the upper echelons of power are reached.

That's a solid enough pattern that there's probably good reasons for it beyond, "they just don't support it."


*say, World of Darkness - upper-end Mages and Vampires are incredibly potent.

I don't want to seem ageist, but the lead designers of RPGs for most of the lifetime of the TTRPG hobby have been people who grew up where the bulk of popular fantasy have been low power.

It's an observable point that few of the major TTRPG designers are not up there.

There's little desire within them to make high level D&D to work. D&D is the inventory and publicist of Zero to Hero gameplay. And everyone in leadership of D&D design has primarily gray hair, no hair, or passed.

And it's less about them being older and more about them all being from generations that don't really care about high level play.

As a person who plays many different kinds of games, I've noticed that when your designers don't really care so much about a specific aspect/playstyle/faction of the game, the quality of that part of the game tends to be a crapshoot.

 

[Minigiant]

Designers have said exactly that. Product was made.

The big selling older items they're generally all level 1-8. Exception was demon web module.

Paizo APs used to go to level 20. I'm not sure if they stopped doing that.

The designers have always* designed bad high level play.

Of course it's not going to be a big seller

My mother didn't learn to make good turkey until someone said it was bad. Then she asked for help and now it's edible.

 

[Zardnaar]

I once used 25 cr 1 creatures as a encounter for level 17 party. They came in waves of 5 round after round, but in xenomorph style ( from different directions in all 3 dimensions). Some spells that are AoE don't have description of area effect in all 3 dimensions, or it's kind of vague (30 feet cones i'm looking at you). But, point is, that combat took time. Sure, they did little damage on individual basis, fighter could drop one with every attack, but they still used up lot more resources and it took way longer than fight vs two big monsters.

I've done that vastly lower levels than 17.

And running 2-4 normal encounters togather in waves done that as well.

 

[Reynard]

Hypothetically how would you plan for and advertise a level 1-20 campaign?

I wouldn't. I would publish level 15-20 adventures that explicitly weren't "endgame" adventures. Honestly they should make one of their anthologies that is just high level adventures.

I Honestly think the "They don't sell" bit is self fulfilling prophecy BS.

 

[Maxperson]

That kind of blame shifting to excuse 5hr result of deliberate design choices is not made is not relevant. By actively choosing to endlessly design for simplify & streamline to the monorail song tune, 5e actively makes choices that also impact what styles of high level play. Not considering high level play while designing against all but a single style is the same end result as choosing to design explicitly for that one style. 5e doesn't just "ignore high level play", it actively works against any style of high level play other than one shot/low agency string of them for high level play. The only way to fix that is with a book.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think lack of consideration = deliberate design for one shots. Even unsupported, I've run multiple high level 5e campaigns just fine. I was just frustrated by the lack of diversity in high level monsters. 3pp folks helped there.