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

Why Do You Think Higher Levels Get Less Play?

  • The leveling system takes too much time IRL to reach high levels

    Votes: 68 41.7%
  • The number of things a PC can do gets overwhelming

    Votes: 74 45.4%
  • DMs aren't interested in using high CR antagonists like demon lords

    Votes: 26 16.0%
  • High level PC spells make the game harder for DMs to account for

    Votes: 94 57.7%
  • Players lose interest in PCs and want to make new ones

    Votes: 56 34.4%
  • DMs lose interest in long-running campaigns and want to make new ones

    Votes: 83 50.9%
  • Other (please explain in post)

    Votes: 45 27.6%

My post was suggesting some reasons that I think explain why lots of D&D players don't play to high levels.

If you're playing to high levels, then I wouldn't expect you to experience those reasons.

That's just an odd statement to me. People don't play high levels because of reasons X and Y so if you play to high levels X and Y don't apply. Either they're barriers or they aren't and in my experience they have never been.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would include 4E there as well tbh.

Feats and powers like that are not newbie friendly lol.
They were since you only need to know your highest ones.

And most feats were just +s.

4e gets complex when you purposely pick the fiddly feats and powers.

The best strikers and defenders just spammed your the simplest powers.
 

I would also add to your excellent list of reasons my earlier point from here: players got what they want.

This is the say that the players strive to reach what they want with their PC's build or concept and then once they achieve it, their interest fades and they feel kind of done.
Their build comes online and their interest then peters out. Part of the reason may be because they just wanted to see how their build plays. It may also be because they have sufficiently explored their character and/or character concept. It may be that their build or PCs of these levels have enough tools to trivialize encounters.
Your conjecture is an interesting one!

I can't easily internalise/intuit it, as I'm not really a "your build" player. But intellectually I can see it. Especially in conjunction with the idea of trivialising encounters - if the build is a type of power/optimisation thing, then seeing it come online and do its thing once or twice might be fun, but there may not be ongoing reward in that (and the GM may not be all that interested either).
 

They were since you only need to know your highest ones.

And most feats were just +s.

4e gets complex when you purposely pick the fiddly feats and powers.

The best strikers and defenders just spammed your the simplest powers.

And if you're not tgat familiar with 4E how do you tell what is the fiddly stuff?

We made it to level 7 hot enough xp to hit 8 and tapped out.
 

That's just an odd statement to me. People don't play high levels because of reasons X and Y so if you play to high levels X and Y don't apply. Either they're barriers or they aren't and in my experience they have never been.
I don't understand. Here's one reason why I don't swim as a regular exercise: I find my hair getting wet with chlorinated water slightly annoying.

But obviously for people who don't mind that, or who are bald, or who can be bothered faffing around with a swimming cap, that is not a reason for them!

One reason a lot of people in my work struggle with certain administrative tasks is they don't have very good Excel skills. My Excel is not bad for a humanities academic, and so I am able to do those tasks, and to assist others with their problems.

Whether or not X is a barrier to A; or is a reason, all things considered, not to do A; is obviously relative to particular people or groups. If it was universal, no one would do A!
 


I don't understand. Here's one reason why I don't swim as a regular exercise: I find my hair getting wet with chlorinated water slightly annoying.

But obviously for people who don't mind that, or who are bald, or who can be bothered faffing around with a swimming cap, that is not a reason for them!

One reason a lot of people in my work struggle with certain administrative tasks is they don't have very good Excel skills. My Excel is not bad for a humanities academic, and so I am able to do those tasks, and to assist others with their problems.

Whether or not X is a barrier to A; or is a reason, all things considered, not to do A; is obviously relative to particular people or groups. If it was universal, no one would do A!

You don't swim in a river, lake, tarn, ocean etc?
 

You don't swim in a river, lake, tarn, ocean etc?
Or take a shower after you swim.

My point is that if you don't like high level play, that's fine. That doesn't mean it's an issue with the rules. Running a good game doesn't require the GM controlling anything. If you feel the need to manipulate your players it's an issue with your approach to the game, not the game itself. That's what I was objecting to and I don't think it has anything to do with high level play. IMO of course.

I figure out what the bad guys are doing, what their capabilities are, how they might counter or react to what the characters do. If I can come up with counters, great. If not and the characters unexpectedly win the day I adjust accordingly. What I don't do is plan out plot lines or have anything predetermined. If you're running a module there's often a bit of that but that requires player buy in that some things are going to be at least a little linear. In my home brew bring on the craziness and I'll deal with it. Just don't be surprised if the enemy also has powerful abilities.
 

As to"epic or beyond epic stories and plots" those can take place at any level because it's about the the scope or scale of story being told through pltrather than the level of PCs participating in those story and plots.
Guess this depends on what your counting as epic and beyond epic. You can have low level PCs save a kingdom, but they can't do all that much....but sure you can have the story just "fix itself".

Well, for my part I think it's pretty obvious why many people don't play high level D&D:

* Most games start at low levels, and so it takes too long to level up relative to how long people remain interested in a particular campaign/party/PC/playgroup;​
Agreed. And I'm a long term play type GM. Most of my games run for years, as I look for players that "want to play forever". But for every long term player, there are at least five that only wnat very short games.
* The PC builds get more complicated, especially spell-casters;​
Obviously.
* Most GMs rely heavily on GM authority over the fiction to manage how play unfolds and to control the scenarios they are running, and at high level it becomes increasingly hard to maintain that authority - especially because of how high-level D&D spells interface with the fiction (in this thread, see both @Minigiant's recent posts, and @Zardnaar's post about "needing to be paid" for the effort of GMing high-level D&D);​
I guess some DMs find it hard to 'control' a game at higher and higher levels....others don't.
* Various special cases of the previous point: fetch-quests for high-level PCs make less sense; dungeons for high-level PCs don't work as well (eg because walls are less constraining, the traps and creatures get more absurd, etc); high-level PCs are harder for the GM to "prompt" or "manipulate" through scenarios via threats and/or inducements, because of their greater capabilities and self-reliance; etc.​
You can't really use the "low level playbook" for high level games. A lot of GMs just use the "classics", and that works fine for the lower level games. But not high level games.
I think the relative lack of modules and monsters is perhaps a contributing factor, but also is an effect as much as a cause.
This is a big point. A lot of GMs are at a massive lost at what to do a high levels. Many are lost without a rulebook to tell them things, and many don't have the creative ability to think up of things.
 

Well, for my part I think it's pretty obvious why many people don't play high level D&D:

* Most games start at low levels, and so it takes too long to level up relative to how long people remain interested in a particular campaign/party/PC/playgroup;​
* The PC builds get more complicated, especially spell-casters;​
* Most GMs rely heavily on GM authority over the fiction to manage how play unfolds and to control the scenarios they are running, and at high level it becomes increasingly hard to maintain that authority - especially because of how high-level D&D spells interface with the fiction (in this thread, see both @Minigiant's recent posts, and @Zardnaar's post about "needing to be paid" for the effort of GMing high-level D&D);​
* Various special cases of the previous point: fetch-quests for high-level PCs make less sense; dungeons for high-level PCs don't work as well (eg because walls are less constraining, the traps and creatures get more absurd, etc); high-level PCs are harder for the GM to "prompt" or "manipulate" through scenarios via threats and/or inducements, because of their greater capabilities and self-reliance; etc.​

I think the relative lack of modules and monsters is perhaps a contributing factor, but also is an effect as much as a cause.

I don't think that the reason for not playing high level D&D is because all the mythic scenarios that might be played out at high level are being played by groups who have restatted all that sort of stuff for mid-level PCs.
Those are all mechanical explanations.

I think (see my previous posts) that people mostly don't play high level D&D for narrative, not mechanical reasons. If you are Jonesing to play high level games, it's easy enough to start with high level characters. So I don't agree with the argument that it takes too long to get there. I think people mostly see the journey as important, and don't want to jump into high level play.

And I see no evidence that GMs are reluctant to run such games because they would have less control.

I think the reason for not playing high level D&D is because most of the fun stuff that happens in a level 20 game can happen in a level 3 game, without all the bother, and in terms of story, a mythic battle is only interesting if it's a rarity. A finale.
 

Remove ads

Top