# 90% of D&D Games Stop By Level 10; Wizards More Popular At Higher Levels



## imagineGod (Feb 7, 2019)

A good place to stop a campaign with relatable hero characters who are not gods. 

My personal target maximum is 10th level, with anything above just a buffer, that is, if characters level up very rapidly and reach 11th or 12th (cue my current Starfinder Campaign free from that 3rd edition epic level nightmare). 

Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition did well to cull those 30th level delusions of grandeur in players, and, instead, encourage more exciting low level play.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 7, 2019)

I'm surprised by how many are playing in tier 4. 5.4% is a lot (even with DoMM out).

I'm not really sure how Beyond works, is it possible that people are creating level 20 characters as character building exercises? Maybe that plays into why classes are differently popular at different tiers.


----------



## lyle.spade (Feb 7, 2019)

imagineGod said:


> A good place to stop a campaign with relatable hero characters who are not gods.
> 
> My personal target maximum is 10th level, with anything above just a buffer, that is, if characters level up very rapidly and reach 11th or 12th (cue my current Starfinder Campaign free from that 3rd edition epic level nightmare).
> 
> Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition did well to cull those 30th level delusions of grandeur in players, and, instead, encourage more exciting low level play.




Well said. I wonder if part of it is time, as well - that is, the time spent playing in and running a campaign that starts at 1st level, and how a typical campaign only lasts a few months, at most, before it gasses out for some reason or another. I've started a few campaigns at Tier 2, and even a few at 3, and they almost always tend to come to an end after 5-6 months, for any variety of reasons related to the game itself or life. Long campaigns will lead to higher character levels in DnD, and so perhaps that fact is a shadow cast by the lifespan of DnD campaigns, rather than deliberate efforts to not turn into superheroes with swords.

For me, I don't like high-level play for that very reason: the characters are not relatable and the stories, in order to challenge the characters mechanically, easily turn into 'can you top this' encounter-focused affairs that lose the story.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 7, 2019)

Not surprising, but this hardly seems unique for any particular edition. It requires much more effort and commitment (and maybe some luck) to reach those tier 3/4 levels from scratch. 

I've always considered how seldom I ever used high level options in actual play and how much space could be salvaged in the core books to focus more on those tiers that are most often used. I would like to see core books that only go to level 10 for the majority of players, and then supplement books (i.e. PHB 2, MM2, DMG2) expand play for more dedicated players into tiers 3-4. Call those "Advanced" or "Expert", if you like. It might curb an implied idea that level 20 is the endgame achievement for all campaigns. Just a thought, but one I've held for a long time.


----------



## 200orcs (Feb 7, 2019)

It's interesting how my tables distribution is totally different. Fighters are not popular at all. Barbarians and Ranger and Warlocks are the most frequent proudly followed by Rogue and Sorcerer.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Not surprising, but this hardly seems unique for any particular edition.




yes, but none before 5e explicitly addressed the issue in terms of game design. bounded accuracy should address this in 5e, and according to the data it seems not to be able to.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 7, 2019)

200orcs said:


> It's interesting how my tables distribution is totally different. Fighters are not popular at all. Barbarians and Ranger and Warlocks are the most frequent proudly followed by Rogue and Sorcerer.




Effect of small sample sizes I guess. Rogues are the most popular amongst my groups, clerics the least.


----------



## Blue (Feb 7, 2019)

I'd put two caveats on this data.

First, there's no separation between played characters and try-a-build characters, so we don't know this is the proper breakdown for campaigns.  I wonder if they can remove characters that have never been given XP.

Second, this is rather self-selecting, for those who use DDBeyond.

For that, it's still an interesting insight that matches my own observations, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of possible weaknesses in the data.


----------



## Matt S1 (Feb 7, 2019)

There's a Kickstarter where the guy takes out all the spells that are almost never picked and converts D&D to 12 levels.  Great idea on my opinion.  My group of over 40 years has never gone past 12th level in our campaigns.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 7, 2019)

Matt S1 said:


> There's a Kickstarter where the guy takes out all the spells that are almost never picked and converts D&D to 12 levels.  Great idea on my opinion.  My group of over 40 years has never gone past 12th level in our campaigns.



Link? That sounds really interesting.

I've played higher levels, a couple times, but it was almost always as part of a "special story" or pulling established characters out of retirement to deal with a bigger threat -- I've let one PC ascend to god-hood and that happened at 12 level (and a ranger). I've just never found higher levels that interesting or fun, especially when the stupid-powerful spells come out (basically, 5th level+).


----------



## AriochQ (Feb 7, 2019)

Often campaign self-destruct before players reach high levels, but for those that do make it that far, lack of high level play may have more to do with the DM than the players.  Players seems always willing to take down the next baddie and tend to enjoy increasing in power, even to god-like levels.  DM's, on the other hand, become increasing tasked attempting to challenge those players at higher levels.  As players level, their circle of influence grows.  It is easy run a campaign centered in a small town, city, or even a kingdom.  At high levels, you usually start dealing with inter-kingdom and extraplanar stuff with world-affecting events.  That is a real chore for the DM if they want to have any sense of continuity in their settings.  In my experience, the DM is usually the one who initiates the "Why don't we start a new campaign?" conversations and the players tend not to feel strongly either way (They like the characters they have, but are also often itching to try a new character they have been mulling over).


----------



## volanin (Feb 7, 2019)

Matt S1 said:


> There's a Kickstarter where the guy takes out all the spells that are almost never picked and converts D&D to 12 levels.  Great idea on my opinion.  My group of over 40 years has never gone past 12th level in our campaigns.




I'm also interested in this!
Closest thing I could find is the Low Fantasy Gaming kickstarter:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lowfantasygaming/low-fantasy-gaming-deluxe-edition

Is this it?


----------



## Matt S1 (Feb 7, 2019)

Yep, that's it.


----------



## Travis Henry (Feb 7, 2019)

Frankly, D&D is too complex at any level, especially beyond 10th. I'm new to 5E, and been running the Starter Set for about five sessions. It is fun. And yet...we lost one player due to complexity at 1st level. And even though I played 3e back in the day, my head swims to keep track of everything. It's fun, but still...

I implore "Mearls, Crawford, and team" to produce another kind of D&D which is still a RPG (not a boardgame or TCG), but which is super-streamlined. I call it "Simply D&D." It could perhaps be based on the Tails of Equestria system. Or it could be an even more streamlined distillation of the Basic Rules.

But the main thing is that a character only gets one Power per level. So by 10th level the character has 10 powers. And only 20 powers by 20th level.

Juveniles have one power (a Race power), Adults have a Background power, and Adventurers have one Class power. Literally, one. Like, the Wizard has one spell.

The first session of the game is run as a party of 2nd-level classless "commoner" adults. (For an even simpler start, could also run a game as children PCs...especially when running the game *for* children.)

Anyway, the first session is only about learning how to use the system: Initiative, Action + Move, Ability Checks, HP, AC. That's about it.

Here's an overview of SD&D:

https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/simple-rpg


----------



## Matt S1 (Feb 7, 2019)

volanin said:


> I'm also interested in this!
> Closest thing I could find is the Low Fantasy Gaming kickstarter:
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lowfantasygaming/low-fantasy-gaming-deluxe-edition
> 
> Is this it?




Yep, that's it.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 7, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> I'm surprised by how many are playing in tier 4. 5.4% is a lot (even with DoMM out).
> 
> I'm not really sure how Beyond works, is it possible that people are creating level 20 characters as character building exercises? Maybe that plays into why classes are differently popular at different tiers.




They might go over it in the video linked above, but D&DB has ways to differentiate PCs being played and test cases when they analyze the data. This is likely already correcting for test characters.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 7, 2019)

Blue said:


> I'd put two caveats on this data.
> 
> First, there's no separation between played characters and try-a-build characters, so we don't know this is the proper breakdown for campaigns.  I wonder if they can remove characters that have never been given XP.
> 
> ...




The results are congruent with what WotC has been saying about high level play for years, hence their focus on publishing Tier 1 & 2 AP material.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 7, 2019)

[MENTION=6985696]Travis Henry[/MENTION]

before someone in here answers to you that wotc does not owe nothing to you, as it has been done uncountable times with me, please consider my suggestion: stop imploring people who are just humans like you and me and simply change the game you use. I would strongly suggest Dungeon World 

https://www.rpgnow.com/m/product/108028

https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com


----------



## OB1 (Feb 7, 2019)

My group has been having an absolute blast in Tier IV over the last year. It’s a different style for sure but the results are some of the best sessions we’ve ever played. 
If you haven’t tried Tier IV in 5e yet I highly recommend it!


----------



## Travis Henry (Feb 7, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=6985696]Travis Henry[/MENTION]
> 
> before someone in here answers to you that wotc does not owe nothing to you, as it has been done uncountable times with me, please consider my suggestion: stop imploring people who are just humans like you and me and simply change the game you use. I would strongly suggest Dungeon World




Hi - thanks for the suggestion of Dungeon World.

As for your request. As a consumer and patron of D&D, I'm free to voice what product I would like to see. It is not a stretch to suggest that complexity level could be related to the drop-off at 10th level. It's also not a stretch to suggest that WotC consider testing another product line (alongside their D&D RPG, D&D Cooperative Boardgames, and D&D Parlor Games).

If I'm not welcome to voice this at ENWorld, the moderator is welcome to notify me.


----------



## Draegn (Feb 7, 2019)

I do not understand how people can be surprised that in a game where one uses their imagination that the preference is to play something you cannot be in the real world. I wager some would blame Harry Potter for the number of wizardly players, at least until the next series of books or films is released.


----------



## 200orcs (Feb 7, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Effect of small sample sizes I guess. Rogues are the most popular amongst my groups, clerics the least.




Yes, for sure. I do run games for about 15 people, different campaigns etc. Still a tiny size though.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 7, 2019)

Travis Henry said:


> It's also not a stretch to suggest that WotC consider testing another product line (alongside their D&D RPG, D&D Cooperative Boardgames, and D&D Parlor Games).
> 
> If I'm not welcome to voice this at ENWorld, the moderator is welcome to notify me.




It's not that you aren't welcome to suggest this on ENWorld... you absolutely can and may suggest anything you'd like.  But I suspect the reason why people will respond with "Just change it yourself" is because of an important fact that I don't think many folks really want to admit to themselves...

...us folks on ENWorld have almost not a single bit of sway with anyone at Wizards of the Coast.

We like to THINK that we are "tried and true" D&Ders, and thus our opinions should hold some weight and that WotC would be wiser to heed our words... but there has never been a single indication that WotC has ever listened or taken our opinions to heart.  As a result, those of us who have been here for a long long time just have come to accept that anyone stating what they think WotC should do is just screaming into the wind.

And thus folks say "Do it yourself".  Because that is the only way you'll _ever_ actually get what you want in a timeframe that is useful to you.  We're trying to help you.  We know you aren't going to get what you want from WotC, so please please please don't wait around hoping that it'll happen.  Do it yourself.  Please!  You'll be a much happier player if you rely on yourself and not WotC for what you need.

So it's not that we're trying to be jerks about it... it's that we know what the result of your request is going to be.  ENWorld is not the place to make your desires known to the folks at WotC, because they just don't hear us here.  Or if they do... it's just one small facet of the overwhelming cacophony of requests that they gather together and then eventually decide to process some time down the line.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Feb 7, 2019)

I tend not to like high-level play, but in my experience, 5e handled better in the 10+ levels than 4e and 3e. 1e and 2e tended to break down more as a result of magic item overload at that point, rather than class complexity.

That being said, 10-ish is a good place to finish a tale. In a game with nigh-infinite possibilities for characters and campaigns, I feel that it’s important to know when to move on and make a fresh start.

I recently listened to the Dragon Talk podcast about that 35+ year campaign. While the idea of telling a tale over that amount of time sounds awesome, the more I listened to it, the more I was horrified at the accrued kludge of it.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> yes, but none before 5e explicitly addressed the issue in terms of game design. bounded accuracy should address this in 5e, and according to the data it seems not to be able to.




1e did.  You reached name level at 9th level, which had many design elements to shift the game.  That's when you got followers or strongholds.  That's when you stopped getting HP adjustments for Constitution.  Demi humans had level limits that were almost all maxed out by that level.  And the vast majority of adventures were up to name level (ish).  I think it was pretty clear in 1e that it was designed for most players to play up until name level.

I'm not surprised at these results at all, because it aligns with how D&D has largely always been played, especially for the first 25 years of the game.  Also, I think a big factor as to why we see those numbers the way we do is because people want to try something new.  After playing several sessions with Bob the fighter, they want to try out Joan the warlock.  In the TSR era days, often players would go back to Bob later on, which I don't see much in 5e.  It seems in 5e, PCs are campaign specific and aren't really played anymore outside of that campaign, while in AD&D, I saw a lot of "We're gonna play the G series." and players choosing which PC from their pool of characters that fit that level range to play.  I suspect it's because AD&D adventures were shorter, and in 5e the adventures are designed for an entire campaign.


----------



## dave2008 (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Not surprising, but this hardly seems unique for any particular edition. It requires much more effort and commitment (and maybe some luck) to reach those tier 3/4 levels from scratch.
> 
> I've always considered how seldom I ever used high level options in actual play and how much space could be salvaged in the core books to focus more on those tiers that are most often used. I would like to see core books that only go to level 10 for the majority of players, and then supplement books (i.e. PHB 2, MM2, DMG2) expand play for more dedicated players into tiers 3-4. Call those "Advanced" or "Expert", if you like. It might curb an implied idea that level 20 is the endgame achievement for all campaigns. Just a thought, but one I've held for a long time.



JL - I would give you XP for this but can't for some reason.  I agree that would be much better.  Focus on level 1-10, slow down the leveling in make those levels with more features that are more "heroic" than "mythic," and move everything else out to supplements.  Love it!


----------



## Retreater (Feb 7, 2019)

My experience is that most of my campaigns fizzle out within 6 months due to player interest, real world reasons, or TPK. We also meet every 2 weeks, so it's rare to get beyond the 7-9th level range. I'm running Tomb of Annihilation and I'm using a milestone leveling system so the group is finally at 10th level - which would've been impossible using regular XP awards with our schedule (and would have also necessitated in running every encounter in the book and additional ones to pad the XP, which would have slowed down the game tremendously). 

In the past, in different editions, I've had groups that requested to start at a higher level to be able to try out high level play. We've found that jumping into this level of play without character familiarity is exhausting to play and DM (especially in 3.x). Those campaigns fizzled out after 2-3 sessions, max.

That said, the highest we've played in 5E (around 15th level to conclude Princes of the Apocalypse) went pretty darned well with a group of experienced players who've known each other for years.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 7, 2019)

[MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]

you are right, the problem is that a lot of people here just think that the current dnd official development team is something more akin to a pantheon on infallible design gods and that any request addressed to them or any comment about their deeds is heresy. and it is impossible to distinguish them from the people who state that is useless to ask because noone is listening.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 7, 2019)

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]

I meant through math embedded in system, sorry not being clear. name level does not imply a sort of 'control' on the randomness and the numerical results of in-session dice rolls.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]
> 
> you are right, the problem is that a lot of people here just think that the current dnd official development team is something more akin to a pantheon on infallible design gods and that any request addressed to them or any comment about their deeds is heresy. and it is impossible to distinguish them from the people who state that is useless to ask because noone is listening.




Who thinks that?  If it's "a lot of people" then it should be pretty easy to name some names of people who are doing that.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]
> 
> I meant through math embedded in system, sorry not being clear. name level does not imply a sort of 'control' on the randomness and the numerical results of in-session dice rolls.




Yeah, and as I said, there are rules like level limits, and CON bonus no longer applying.  I.e., actual game mechanics that do exactly what you're saying 5e does that no other edition did.


----------



## Retreater (Feb 7, 2019)

I know I tend to share a lot of frustration on these boards, but it's because I feel a kinship in the community here and value the input. I've been DMing for 25 years, but I am always learning. So if I air criticism about game design, I do so with the purpose of finding ways around my issues to improve the game experience of my players.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 7, 2019)

Retreater said:


> I know I tend to share a lot of frustration on these boards, but it's because I feel a kinship in the community here and value the input. I've been DMing for 25 years, but I am always learning. So if I air criticism about game design, I do so with the purpose of finding ways around my issues to improve the game experience of my players.




Which is always a noble goal, and one that more often than not you will get ideas and assistance from, from those of us here.

But what I think oftentimes happens is that coupled with a request for ideas on how to improve their game... many posters (not saying you specifically, but just posters in general) also take potshots at the designers for being stupid and how could they have designed such "obviously" poor or broken rules.  It's never enough to want solutions, they also want to denigrate the work that was done because in their opinion WotC focused on the wrong things, or didn't playtest enough, or refused to write a book that catered to every single playstyle out there, etc. etc. etc.

And thus a thread that was meant to just be a font for ideas devolves into people showing up to defend WotC against what they feel is unwarranted attack by people who apparently didn't know or didn't care about what WotC was and is trying to do... only what they _didn't_ do that the poster feels should have been an obvious thing.  When the actual "obvious" answer is that's just not 5E was designed to do.

If someone needs specific ideas for specific problems at their specific table... it goes a long way to just address it like that, without placing blame for why they feel the need to ask.  "Hey, I'm hoping to find an amended weapons table that does X, Y, & Z... anyone know of any, or any old threads that talked about it, or anything on DMs Guild about it?" for example.  You ask it like that, and you'll get plenty of people dropping you links and such.  Yeah, there will be the occasional person who will "help" by saying "Why do you need that?  The weapon table is fine!"... but at that point you hopefully will have already received your answer and then you just don't need to answer their inane question.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 7, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> I'm surprised by how many are playing in tier 4. 5.4% is a lot (even with DoMM out).
> 
> I'm not really sure how Beyond works, is it possible that people are creating level 20 characters as character building exercises? Maybe that plays into why classes are differently popular at different tiers.




Yes, it is possible, and in fact I think that is the most likely explanation for tier 4 being more popular than tier 3. These stats don't distinguish between characters being actively played and characters created as a thought exercise. I bet that if you took that chart and broke it out by level, you would find next to nothing from 17-19 and a huge spike at 20.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

Dausuul said:


> Yes, it is possible, and in fact I think that is the most likely explanation for tier 4 being more popular than tier 3. These stats don't distinguish between characters being actively played and characters created as a thought exercise. I bet that if you took that chart and broke it out by level, you would find next to nothing from 17-19 and a huge spike at 20.




that's my thought as well.  Not only players creating level 20 from the get go, but I'd suspect those people who play to level 17 don't stop until they hit level 20.  If you're gonna do 95% of the race, might as well finish, right?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 7, 2019)

In my final 5e campaign they hit 10-11th level and started curb stomping demon princes so we just called that a campaign and retired the PC.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 7, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Who thinks that?  If it's "a lot of people" then it should be pretty easy to name some names of people who are doing that.




I don't know, you could ask to her:



			
				DEFCON 1 said:
			
		

> many posters (not saying you specifically, but just posters in general) also take potshots at the designers for being stupid and how could they have designed such "obviously" poor or broken rules


----------



## Magister Ludorum (Feb 7, 2019)

I'm sure that this is true for most players, but my own chronicles tend to go from level 3 (the usual starting point) and end somewhere in Tier 4, despite the fact that we level much more slowly than the RAW. (We use milestone leveling).

My current Greyhawk 5e game began in a small village in Nyrond dealing with low-level members of the cult of Iuz, and is planned to culminate in a confrontation with the Old One himself in the bowels of Castle Greyhawk 7+ game years (not real years) later. I'm hoping that 5e will make this more enjoyable at high levels than my previous 3.5e FR chronicle which spanned 3 game years and went to level 18.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> I don't know, you could ask to her:




DEFCON 1 is talking about literally the opposite of what you accused.  You said there were lots of people who act like the WoTC team are infallible gods.  I asked who, and you to provide names.  DEFCON is talking about people who take pot shots at the developers and attack them personally.  Like CapnZapp, or FrogReaver, or Hussar (and others) have done in the past.

So again, if you're going to make an accusation, I'd hope you could back that up.  Especially since you said "lots of people" are doing what you accused.


----------



## Blue (Feb 7, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> The results are congruent with what WotC has been saying about high level play for years, hence their focus on publishing Tier 1 & 2 AP material.




Wizard's haven't made their percentages known, so it's not useful as a way to vet this data except in gross shape.  That we can confirm matches up.  "Yeah, more low level play than anything else".


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 7, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> They might go over it in the video linked above, but D&DB has ways to differentiate PCs being played and test cases when they analyze the data. This is likely already correcting for test characters.




I’d be interested in looking into that since otherwise “number of characters = number of games” is a massively false premise. I’m also kinda skeptical of how accurate they could be in actual usage since I have many characters I created in DDB for games, but never used DDB in game for them - either they were PbP online, or imported to Roll20, or printed as PDFs for a one shot. Their usage would not look much different than a test character. Plus I also have multiple characters in some campaigns.

Shifting to anecdotal data of my own usage (but specific numbers to illustrate my point), I have 56 characters in DDB. 30 have never been played. 5 were NPCs (for 2 games) that I generated in DDB because I wanted them detailed. I have 3 characters that were PbP, only 1 of which was lasted long enough for me to go back and level my character, the other 2 I created, copied over to Paizo boards for reference and never accessed on DDB again. I have 8 that were part of a single one-shot (printed as PDFs for players) so were again created once and never accessed again (and therefore possibly looking just like a “test character”, many of which I also printed PDFs of). I have 4 characters I actively use in DDB during game for a campaign with just my wife that has stopped but will be picked up again later. I have 2 characters for a Dragon Heist game I’m playing with my wife while the other is paused. Another few characters from games that ended. Plus my PC from my main, regular group (level 11 and looking good for full 20) isn’t even in DDB because he’s a 3pp class.

So (if I added things right scrolling back and forth):
 - 56 characters
 - 45ish I only created and either never accessed again or accessed rarely, but only 2/3 were “test characters” never used
 - 16 are PCs used in 6 games (or 21 & 8 with NPCs)
 - 6 that I actively used DDB in game (from only 2 games)
 - longest running PC isn’t even in DDB 

I’m not sure the situations I’m in are really rare. Thinking of everyone I play with (in person on online), # of DDB characters and # of games, have very little relation at all.


So even thinking about usage stats they would have on the back end (and as a full time web app programmer, I can think of many), I don’t know how you could pull any reliable metric of “# of games” from DDB characters. Putting on my other hat as a PhD student, I see FAR too many confounding variables to be able to draw that conclusion with any confidence.

It is still interesting data about characters, of course, and I enjoy DDB’s data results. I just think trying to map that to data about games relies on a lot of unsupported assumptions.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 7, 2019)

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]

neither me or DEFCON 1 are obliged to make lists of people, also if for diametrically opposite reasons.
personally, I find "proscription lists" really creepy.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]
> 
> neither me or DEFCON 1 are obliged to make lists of people, also if for diametrically opposite reasons.
> personally, I find "proscription lists" really creepy.




So that's a "no" then.  You can't back up your claim.  If you're going to accuse people of doing X behavior, you need to back it up.  Otherwise don't bring it up in the first place.  And people will just assume you're making up lies to fit your biases.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Feb 7, 2019)

I'm a little skeptical of this data for a variety of reasons including self-selecting parameters and the ability to create new characters on a whim that aren't actually used in play but as a thought exercise.

With that said, I'd say I'm not shocked by the results either as this has generally been what WoTC has claimed their data revealed.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Feb 7, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> that's my thought as well.  Not only players creating level 20 from the get go, but I'd suspect those people who play to level 17 don't stop until they hit level 20.  If you're gonna do 95% of the race, might as well finish, right?




My last campaign lasted until the players hit level 17 (or, they would have hit level 17 after the boss fight).  After fighting an Avatar of God and defeating the BBEG, their story was completed.  It took about 1 1/2 years to get from level 3 to level 17 playing about 5 hours a week with the occasional missed week.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 7, 2019)

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]

I prefer to be considered a liar rather than someone who separates the world into good and bad people.
a kind of approach which produced a looot of troubles in the past.
so if the price of being someone who does not put people on a list is being considered a liar, then feel free to consider me the king of liars.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 7, 2019)

Heh... I didn't feel as though I needed to name names, as almost all of us could probably rattle off a bunch off the top of our heads.  

And heck, I'll even do a solid by stating that I'm probably one of the ones  [MENTION=6781549]DQDesign[/MENTION] would actually put down as one of the "infallible WotC" types.  Because quite frankly I don't give them any more blame nor credit that what they have produced in their books.  The books are their books.  If their stuff is useful, I use it.  And anything I don't wish to use, I don't.  And if there's other stuff I wish to have that the books don't have, I make it up.  Because that is _literally_ what they keep telling me to do.  Make a ruling, don't bother demanding rules.  And I take them at their word and don't blame them for making that choice and repeatedly telling me of their choice.  Because if I didn't like that choice in the first place, I didn't have to play 5E.

To get angry at them for not putting in a book that which I wanted but which they chose not to is ridiculous in my opinion.  And I usually have no problem pointing out how ridiculous it is.  Much to the chagrin of the people who have to occasionally throw me out of particular threads because I'm sometimes not subtle enough about it.


----------



## toucanbuzz (Feb 7, 2019)

Data matches my personal experience for a variety of reasons:

1. It's hard to keep the same people on the same campaign for the years necessary to reach high level play, whether it be interest in the same old character, or people moving on or people having kids, etc. 

2. D&D adventures don't support high level play. It's great running published material, but even _Out of the Abyss_ (up to 15th) felt like they put all their creative effort on the front end (up to level 7) and kinda shrugged like "meh" on the back end. There wasn't nearly enough content to reach the recommended finale levels and the in-depth dungeons and material was heavy-loaded for starting levels.

3. Many monster manual creatures are ill designed (and somewhat dull) for high level play, having very few powers with which to challenge a very diverse party.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]
> 
> I prefer to be considered a liar rather than someone who separates the world into good and bad people.
> a kind of approach which produced a looot of troubles in the past.
> so if the price of being someone who does not put people on a list is being considered a liar, then feel free to consider me the king of liars.




Well, you're doubling down on the hyperbole, I'll give you that.  Saying who is doing what you're accusing people of is not separating them into good or bad people.  Good lord.  It's simply pointing out concrete examples that support your argument.  There is no judgment of their character going on.  And if you can't do that, then it pretty much means you should probably reevaluate your argument in the first place on grounds of merit.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Feb 7, 2019)

This is my problem with the game. I don’t even want to play under 10th level anymore. I want to play the levels 10-20. I just want to puke at playing another character that isn’t at least 5th or 6th.  And the wizard doesn’t even come in to his own until around 10th level for my taste. 

Disclaimer:  there is absolutely nothing wrong with people that like the first 10 levels. I am only expressing my own aesthetical tastes towards playing.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> This is my problem with the game. I don’t even want to play under 10th level anymore. I want to play the levels 10-20. I just want to puke at playing another character that isn’t at least 5th or 6th.  And the wizard doesn’t even come in to his own until around 10th level for my taste.
> 
> Disclaimer:  there is absolutely nothing wrong with people that like the first 10 levels. I am only expressing my own aesthetical tastes towards playing.




Absolutely.  Just like there's nothing wrong with people who like to start at higher levels 

I've often mentioned in conversations around people who demand higher level support that the reality is that the business model doesn't really support that any more than an homage or a nod.  That doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for folks like yourself, who prefer a certain range and don't see much official support for it.  Thank goodness for DMs Guild.  I know it's not what you want, but at least it's something to help.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 7, 2019)

I think the numbers over-emphasize low level characters. I know I have several characters that I just wrote up as backups/just-in-case characters.  I have far more character ideas than I have game time.

As far as high level characters, I've played in and run campaigns up to 20th level.  While I have a personal fondness for low level play because of how quick and deadly low level combat can be, high level play works better in 5E than previous editions in my experience.

Then again I played in/ran home campaigns and we didn't have any issues tweaking monsters or building encounters that on paper should have been double deadly.  However, there are only so many earth-shattering campaign stories out there; how many times can there be a demon invasion?  How often can ancient evil dragons form cabals to take over the world?  There are only so many stories that work at higher levels.

Especially if you don't really want a story campaign and just want a group of murder-hobos getting rich looting ancient tombs there's not a lot of reason to get to the higher levels.

I suspect though most of it just has to do with people keeping groups together along with (possibly) older editions not working as well at higher levels.


----------



## OB1 (Feb 7, 2019)

Mr. Wilson said:


> I'm a little skeptical of this data for a variety of reasons including self-selecting parameters and the ability to create new characters on a whim that aren't actually used in play but as a thought exercise.
> 
> With that said, I'd say I'm not shocked by the results either as this has generally been what WoTC has claimed their data revealed.




It’s worth repeating that Beyond has ways to scrub its data to clean up test or never been used characters, as I’ve seen several posts like this one. 

Beyond can see when people use the long/short rest functions, reduce hps, use spell slots and other limited use abilities, and level up by single levels over multiple weeks/months instead of all at once to separate out characters that are being played from those just being created for fun. 

I’m sure group attrition is the biggest reason high level play isn’t more common, as going 1-20 takes time whether you use XP or milestone.

Which is why there is nothing wrong with starting a campaign at Tier III or Tier IV!  Each Tier tells a different kind of story, and there is no reason anyone should HAVE to play the first 16 levels of a character to experience the kind of story that Tier IV has to offer. Origin stories are fun, but sometimes you just want to jump right into an Avengers plot line!


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 7, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> This is my problem with the game. I don’t even want to play under 10th level anymore. I want to play the levels 10-20. I just want to puke at playing another character that isn’t at least 5th or 6th.  And the wizard doesn’t even come in to his own until around 10th level for my taste.
> 
> Disclaimer:  there is absolutely nothing wrong with people that like the first 10 levels. I am only expressing my own aesthetical tastes towards playing.



If anything, we really should see more play at Tier 3 and 4, not less.  5e isn't really much more complex in the teen levels, and the numbers don't grow out of control.  A 5e game at level 15 isn't really much different than a 3e game at level 8 or 9.


----------



## jgsugden (Feb 7, 2019)

I have created hundreds of first level PCs and advanced them up througha few levels as I plotted various designs.  I wonder if they included thse types of characters or excluded them from their statistics.


----------



## jgsugden (Feb 7, 2019)

OB1 said:


> ...
> 
> Beyond can see when people use the long/short rest functions, reduce hps, use spell slots and other limited use abilities, and level up by single levels over multiple weeks/months instead of all at once to separate out characters that are being played from those just being created for fun.



Except I have played in games where I made a PC in Beyond, printed it out and then never updated Beyond, and also have created a 'second' PC for another game to evaluate what I might have done in combat had I played a class I had not had a chance to play recently... a "phantom" character that experienced hp losses, rests, etc... but never hit the table.

They have no way to clearly identify what is rel and what is illusion, but they can estimate.


----------



## lkj (Feb 7, 2019)

As I usually do in threads like this these days, I'll note that I'm DM'ing a tier 4 campaign (PC's closing in on 20th level and the big climax). We've played since 1st level. It did take us a long time (mostly because our play time is limited).

But man, we are having a blast.

AD


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> If anything, we really should see more play at Tier 3 and 4, not less.  5e isn't really much more complex in the teen levels, and the numbers don't grow out of control.  A 5e game at level 15 isn't really much different than a 3e game at level 8 or 9.




You're absolutely right that it isn't more complex, and numbers bloat isn't nearly as bad as 3e, but I think the biggest factor (at least bigger than those two) as to why are aren't seeing much Tier 4 is because players want to play different PCs by then.  It's a time thing.  Not a complexity or bloat thing.  Pretty much everyone I know wants to try out different characters by the end of tier 2.  That, and a lot of people seem to prefer it before PCs become superhero in status or power.  At least by what I've seen.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 7, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> You're absolutely right that it isn't more complex, and numbers bloat isn't nearly as bad as 3e, but I think the biggest factor (at least bigger than those two) as to why are aren't seeing much Tier 4 is because players want to play different PCs by then.  It's a time thing.  Not a complexity or bloat thing.  Pretty much everyone I know wants to try out different characters by the end of tier 2.



Oh, I don't disagree with that, I do that all the time (remake new characters).  Maybe just more campaigns that start at level 11+.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Feb 7, 2019)

Travis Henry said:


> Frankly, D&D is too complex at any level, especially beyond 10th. I'm new to 5E, and been running the Starter Set for about five sessions. It is fun. And yet...we lost one player due to complexity at 1st level. And even though I played 3e back in the day, my head swims to keep track of everything. It's fun, but still...
> 
> I implore "Mearls, Crawford, and team" to produce another kind of D&D which is still a RPG (not a boardgame or TCG), but which is super-streamlined. I call it "Simply D&D." It could perhaps be based on the Tails of Equestria system. Or it could be an even more streamlined distillation of the Basic Rules.
> 
> ...




You lost a player at 1st level due to complexity? What the heck were they playing that made things too complicated, because at 1st level your options aren’t much beyond move and/or hit for most characters. 2nd and 3rd levels are where more options get added in (which I’m guessing was completely intentional by the designers).

Anything outside of combat is not much beyond a d20 roll with your skill modifier. I could see someone new to RPGs getting overwhelmed by the fact that you can do anything you want, but that is a RPG issue, not a D&D one.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 7, 2019)

There is also a complete lack of support for gameplay at level 11+. Even most of the campaigns stop at level 10 now.

We need more books like Colville's Strongholds & Followers that provide a framework and tools for the higher levels.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 7, 2019)

lkj said:


> As I usually do in threads like this these days, I'll note that I'm DM'ing a tier 4 campaign (PC's closing in on 20th level and the big climax). We've played since 1st level. It did take us a long time (mostly because our play time is limited).
> 
> But man, we are having a blast.
> 
> AD




Just out of curiosity, how long did that take real time and how often a month do you play?


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Feb 7, 2019)

I’m not at all surprised that the number of PCs goes down as the levels go up. That would be common to most RPGs and editions of D&D.

I do wonder how much the 5E stats are also impacted by the fact that the WotC adventures tend to end around level 10-13 (with only DotMM designed to run above level 15). Yes, DMs can easily make their own adventures and I’m sure there are plenty of 3rd party adventures at higher levels, but it would not surprise me if a heap of groups picked a WotC adventure, ran that to completion, then started a new campaign with another WotC adventure.


----------



## kenmarable (Feb 7, 2019)

OB1 said:


> It’s worth repeating that Beyond has ways to scrub its data to clean up test or never been used characters, as I’ve seen several posts like this one.
> 
> Beyond can see when people use the long/short rest functions, reduce hps, use spell slots and other limited use abilities, and level up by single levels over multiple weeks/months instead of all at once to separate out characters that are being played from those just being created for fun.
> 
> ...




I probably rambled on too long up above, but even with all of the back end usage info they would have, they still have to rely on dubious assumptions to be able to conclude much of anything about campaigns from character data. Maybe some vague ideas, but there are far too many confounding variables to come to any strong conclusions. But I also need to watch the dev update because I’m not clear if DDB drew these conclusions about campaigns, or if Morrus did when he posted it.

It is still interesting data about characters. And *hints at* interesting things about campaigns.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> JL - I would give you XP for this but can't for some reason.  I agree that would be much better.  Focus on level 1-10, slow down the leveling in make those levels with more features that are more "heroic" than "mythic," and move everything else out to supplements.  Love it!




The problem with this being, I suspect, that instead of playing levels 1-19, slower leveling would simply change the upper end of the range.  So, it becomes levels 1-6, or whatever level it generally takes about a year of play to reach.  

The issue has always been time.  Even back in 1e, it was expected that you'd hit about 9th or 10th level after about a year of regular play.  And then the DM would retire that campaign and you'd start anew.

Heck, I wonder, looking at the BECMI rules, what percentage of groups never got past E?


----------



## Prakriti (Feb 7, 2019)

Skywalker said:


> We need more books like Colville's Strongholds & Followers that provide a framework and tools for the higher levels.



I agree. In AD&D, characters automatically gained followers around level 9, and the meat of the game transitioned away from adventuring and into kingdom management. Which only makes sense: Usually when a character acquires enough wealth to live out the rest of their life in comfort, they have little to no reason to continue adventuring (i.e. risking their life). That's what I don't think a lot of players these days understand: _your character can retire_. PCs don't have to keep rolling dice until they hit max level or die. They can hang up their adventuring caps and live in peace, possibly becoming important NPCs in the game-world.

I wish 5E had said something about that. Instead, people think Tiers 3 and 4 are boring or poorly supported. They're not. It's just that people play them the same way that they play Tiers 1 and 2, which is all wrong. By Tier 3, the PCs are among the most powerful creatures in existence. By Tier 4, they are practically gods. They should be reshaping the world, raising armies, founding kingdoms, unlocking the secrets of the planes, not helping villagers rid themselves of a pesky goblin tribe. But that, for some reason, is how some people choose to play the upper levels. And why not? 5E gives them no indication that it should be any other way.


----------



## lkj (Feb 7, 2019)

KarinsDad said:


> Just out of curiosity, how long did that take real time and how often a month do you play?




It's been really sporadic. We started the game at the tail end of the playtest. So 2014ish. We try to play once a week for about an hour or an hour and a half (via google hangouts, roll20 and DDB). But doing that math backwards would be really misleading. Each year, we've had months without getting a game in (because of real life, playing another campaign, or just chatting instead of gaming). But then we've had weekend get-togethers where we've played all day for two days straight. 

It would probably break my brain to try to figure out how much we've actually played over the last 5 years. It is SUBSTANTIALLY less than the equivalent of a weekly game for 5 years (even a game that we only play for an 1.5 hours). My wild guess is that had we managed a consistent schedule, we'd probably have gotten here in a couple years. Faster if we were playing 3 hour sessions instead of half that. 

But that's all very fuzz math. 

Sorry if that doesn't help.  

AD


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 7, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> Oh, I don't disagree with that, I do that all the time (remake new characters).  Maybe just more campaigns that start at level 11+.




I know they are very cautious about book bloat in this edition, but after 5 years, even I can agree there needs to be a high level campaign book.  Ideally, one that references all the other campaigns in how you can continue and incorporate them (STK, ToA, etc) into a high level campaign.  I mean, there's so much there from each that can easily be put into a high level campaign, it's just begging for it.


----------



## AriochQ (Feb 7, 2019)

Prakriti said:


> . By Tier 3, the PCs are among the most powerful creatures in existence. By Tier 4, they are practically gods.




Huh? Neither of those is true in the vast majority of campaigns.  Any campaign that it is true, would be considered an outlier IMHO.

I agree that gameplay needs to change as characters grow in power to keep things interesting.  That is true in every RPG.  Sometimes players aren't interested in empire building or world shaping and that makes higher D&D level adventuring pretty tough.


----------



## OB1 (Feb 7, 2019)

KarinsDad said:


> Just out of curiosity, how long did that take real time and how often a month do you play?




My primary campaign is at about the same point (18th level) started in the play test and expect to wrap up by May. We play about 10-12 hours a month, but had three different 6 month periods (one after each Tier)where we played another campaign over the last 4 years.  

Tier IV has been the longest continuous Section, having started in Feb of last year, but I’m having so much fun running and the players playing that we’ve been stretching it. 

Alas, the side quests are running out and the Prime Villain is on the move towards its ultimate goal so the end is now coming one way or another!


----------



## lkj (Feb 7, 2019)

OB1 said:


> My primary campaign is at about the same point (18th level) started in the play test and expect to wrap up by May. We play about 10-12 hours a month, but had three different 6 month periods (one after each Tier)where we played another campaign over the last 4 years.
> 
> Tier IV has been the longest continuous Section, having started in Feb of last year, but I’m having so much fun running and the players playing that we’ve been stretching it.
> 
> Alas, the side quests are running out and the Prime Villain is on the move towards its ultimate goal so the end is now coming one way or another!




I think my favorite part of our current campaign is that it never had an overarching metaplot. Don't get me wrong. I love those big story campaigns too (ran a different campaign from 1 to 20 across several editions and many years that had a huge world ending story line). But in this game, I started it off by dropping plot hooks here and there, some based on character backgrounds. Some on the fly. Some where I had an inkling of what might happen.

And the party just went all over the place plot-wise (and geographically).  We are now, finally, in a 'If you fail, demonic armies will be unleashed across the planes' scenario. But that situation is almost entirely of the party's own making. The big end of campaign climax is basically just them trying to fix something they broke. 

I can't tell you how fun that is. 

AD


----------



## jimmytheccomic (Feb 7, 2019)

I just finished DMing my second 1-20 campaign! I'm actually really impressed with how well 5e runs at high levels- combat is more elaborate, but each round doesn't take an absurd amount of time. A good fight still just takes 45 minutes or so- I remember running third edition where a single high level fight would eat up the entire evening. I also liked that high level in 5e felt superheroic but the characters were still vulnerable. We've just started our third 5e campaign, I'm planning on pushing this one to 20 as well.


----------



## OB1 (Feb 7, 2019)

lkj said:


> I think my favorite part of our current campaign is that it never had an overarching metaplot. Don't get me wrong. I love those big story campaigns too (ran a different campaign from 1 to 20 across several editions and many years that had a huge world ending story line). But in this game, I started it off by dropping plot hooks here and there, some based on character backgrounds. Some on the fly. Some where I had an inkling of what might happen.
> 
> And the party just went all over the place plot-wise (and geographically).  We are now, finally, in a 'If you fail, demonic armies will be unleashed across the planes' scenario. But that situation is almost entirely of the party's own making. The big end of campaign climax is basically just them trying to fix something they broke.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I had an overarching main quest for each Tier that drove the action but not for the whole campaign.  The plot of the next tier grew out of what they did in the previous, which was one of the reasons I needed a 6 month break after each to figure out the next. The Prime Villain of Tier IV only became so because of choices they made in II and III, I’d have never imagined it way back when we started. 

Will probably be a while before trying to do a 1-20 again. But up next I’ll give them the choice of what Tier they want to play in and build a story contained just to that. I’m guessing it will be either II or IV.


----------



## dave2008 (Feb 8, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The problem with this being, I suspect, that instead of playing levels 1-19, slower leveling would simply change the upper end of the range.  So, it becomes levels 1-6, or whatever level it generally takes about a year of play to reach.
> 
> The issue has always been time.  Even back in 1e, it was expected that you'd hit about 9th or 10th level after about a year of regular play.  And then the DM would retire that campaign and you'd start anew.




Possibly, I feel like there has to be a sweet spot.  You could of course keep the leveling the same form 1-10 and stop the core books there.  Make everything else supplements.  



Hussar said:


> Heck, I wonder, looking at the BECMI rules, what percentage of groups never got past E?




Crazy wasn't it!?  We never got to C, but I did bring in some of the monsters from C into our B & E games.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

Dausuul said:


> Yes, it is possible, and in fact I think that is the most likely explanation for tier 4 being more popular than tier 3. These stats don't distinguish between characters being actively played and characters created as a thought exercise. I bet that if you took that chart and broke it out by level, you would find next to nothing from 17-19 and a huge spike at 20.



I did not view this broadcast, but before in other vids they clarified that (for better or worse) they separate test characters and play characters thru a variety of criteria including a pattern of leveling up over time, adjustments made in play like HP up down, rests triggered etc.

I cannot say that what they do is comprehensive or not, but they have at least made the claim to be weeding out test and trial non-played characters. 

Unless they say differently in this video, I have to assume they continue thst practice here.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Feb 8, 2019)

My initial question seeing this, having not used D&D Beyond, is whether this breakdown includes multiclassing. Fighter especially is a class where I could see characters with a few levels (amid another class) essentially double-counting classes used (with Fighter being so often discussed as the class most dipped).

I also wonder, given the platform in question, if the length of the campaigns here partly reflect different logistics between in-person and online games — are the sort of games played on this sort of platform often Howe which are played remotely by disconnected groups whose schedules might break down sooner than in-person groups (or simply coordinate playing times less often)?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2019)

AriochQ said:


> Huh? Neither of those is true in the vast majority of campaigns.  Any campaign that it is true, would be considered an outlier IMHO.
> 
> I agree that gameplay needs to change as characters grow in power to keep things interesting.  That is true in every RPG.  Sometimes players aren't interested in empire building or world shaping and that makes higher D&D level adventuring pretty tough.




This I disagree with.  By the time a group is mid to high double digit levels, there's pretty much nothing native to the plane, outside of some dragons, that could individually challenge them in any edition.  By that time, you're dealing with major demons and devils on a fairly regular basis.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> Except I have played in games where I made a PC in Beyond, printed it out and then never updated Beyond, and also have created a 'second' PC for another game to evaluate what I might have done in combat had I played a class I had not had a chance to play recently... a "phantom" character that experienced hp losses, rests, etc... but never hit the table.
> 
> They have no way to clearly identify what is rel and what is illusion, but they can estimate.



Yeah me too... but...

I got a ton of characters on my site both mine and campaigns from players etc and... if they looked at short rest use over time, hp up and down on multiple occasions, etc looking for a number of factors even just ssy 3 different clues out of a set of maybe ten I can think of right off ... they would divvy my characters into played and not played with like 90% accuracy - with one big exception case.

They would miss out on one-shots - where I run one shots and hand out printed chars to players at FLGS.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

AmerginLiath said:


> My initial question seeing this, having not used D&D Beyond, is whether this breakdown includes multiclassing. Fighter especially is a class where I could see characters with a few levels (amid another class) essentially double-counting classes used (with Fighter being so often discussed as the class most dipped).
> 
> I also wonder, given the platform in question, if the length of the campaigns here partly reflect different logistics between in-person and online games — are the sort of games played on this sort of platform often Howe which are played remotely by disconnected groups whose schedules might break down sooner than in-person groups (or simply coordinate playing times less often)?



This is also something I wonder - and have not seen an answer on - how do MC characters figure into this? Is a life cleric dip main druid gonna count as one of each? How many of the warlocks are from 1-3 level dips?

I think it would be very interesting to see the same data represented 4 ways...

All combined as it is now.
Single class only
Multi-class only
All combined but weighted by "levels in class"

Additionally I would love to see for each class and subclass how many are single vs multi-class.

I think those four-five slices on the same datasets of characters could be very informative.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 8, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> JL - I would give you XP for this but can't for some reason.  I agree that would be much better.  Focus on level 1-10, slow down the leveling in make those levels with more features that are more "heroic" than "mythic," and move everything else out to supplements.  Love it!



Well I appreciate you taking the effort to express your sentiments more than the XP. So thank you for that.


----------



## bedir than (Feb 8, 2019)

Hussar said:


> This I disagree with.  By the time a group is mid to high double digit levels, there's pretty much nothing native to the plane, outside of some dragons, that could individually challenge them in any edition.  By that time, you're dealing with major demons and devils on a fairly regular basis.




From the SRD the non-planar non-dragons at CR 15+ are;
Purple Worm
Mummy Lord
Iron Golem
Androsphinx
Lich
Kraken
Tarrasque

Campaigns at those levels are seeking undead leaders and kaiju, regularly, not just as the big bad


----------



## Travis Henry (Feb 8, 2019)

Olaf the Stout said:


> You lost a player at 1st level due to complexity? What the heck were they playing that made things too complicated, because at 1st level your options aren’t much beyond move and/or hit for most characters. 2nd and 3rd levels are where more options get added in (which I’m guessing was completely intentional by the designers).




5 personality traits
a long list of equipment
18-some skills
big list of Proficiencies
the three character powers (Second Wind, Fighting Style, and Position of Privilege) have long descriptions
the long text on the back of the sheet describing Humans, Fighters, and Background.

I know many ENWorlders may roll their eyes - but really, it's quite a lot of info. It's an info dump. And yeah, I figure there are tips for managing the info, but still... D&D is very complex, even at first level.

She's not a gamer gearhead - she's an artist. She liked some aspects of the game, but the crunch and sheer detail was too much.
At the same time, me and the other fellow were learning the rules for the first time ourselves. I did my best, but the first two sessions were slow and clunky.



> Anything outside of combat is not much beyond a d20 roll with your skill modifier.




If that were only so. Well then, a character sheet could have hardly more than just the six abilities written on it! Visually, six boxes with six numbers in it would present a very different picture than the 40-some boxes filled with dense text on the front of the Starter Stet's noble fighter pregen char sheet, and its 3 novella-style paragraphs on the back.

I wish there was a *BASIC BASIC D&D* which was still an RPG (not a boardgame), and was still a vigorous engine for exploring the D&D Multiverse.


----------



## Henry (Feb 8, 2019)

Looking at the stats, it mirrors the experience of the vast majority of my gaming life, throughout about seven editions of the game’s over 35+ years. I have a binder of characters from my basic and AD&D days — only 2 hit 9th level, the rest are 7th and below. Of my 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder days, only about six characters ever made it to levels 15 and up. Overall, it takes about six to 10 months for us to get a character to 9th or 10th level, and by then the group makeup has changed — or the DM is getting burnout.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

Travis Henry said:


> 5 personality traits
> a long list of equipment
> 18-some skills
> big list of Proficiencies
> ...




"She's not a gamer gearhead - she's an artist. She liked some aspects of the game, but the crunch and sheer detail was too much."

I have added 60 yo grandmothers who have never played a game of RPg ever to a 3.5 game, novices to HERO supers-games and so on.

This requires DMing in a way that doesn't result in a "read all this and learn it" experience. 

"Ok so you get the basic idea - what kind of hero-to-be would you like to play?" comes **after** some discussions of genre related bits they like.

You build some early character for them and hand them a basic summary easy-to-go guide of a character. not just dumping an official DDB print-out.

Then you hook them with the play, not the rules, not the system. They say "run across the room, jump the table and grab them..." and as they move the figure you start slipping in "so you jump the table make an athletics check" and "roll d20 plus athletics for the grapple attack to grab." 

if they describe too much, just say " she thinks she may not make that much, but she can get this far is that OK? not "turns, actions, bonus..."

As time goes on, even just a few levels, they will either decide its not for them, that its great and they wanna keep going like this but more often they start picking up some of the bits and fiddly choices being made by you and others and learn as much of the fiddly bits as they need.

There is a lot of skill needed to bring folks into a game that they are unfamilar with. You don't just sit someone down to play poker and hand them the Roger's Rules and start dealing - unless your intent is to fleece them.

Obviously, you did not do that sit them down and fleece them but the descriptions of the "trouble" you present speak more for the GM/play style than the player and system. 

By the end of that 3.5 game with the total novice grandma, she was running the show and system-fu was never a problem.

"Ok so let me stop this right here. **I am not in charge. I am not leader. I wont ever be leader. Got it!?**... Now you go do this and you go do that and you two come here because I need..."

ahhh... the memories.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 8, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> This is also something I wonder - and have not seen an answer on - how do MC characters figure into this? Is a life cleric dip main druid gonna count as one of each? How many of the warlocks are from 1-3 level dips?
> 
> I think it would be very interesting to see the same data represented 4 ways...
> 
> ...




IIRC, Multiclassing is pretty fringe.


----------



## Wiseblood (Feb 8, 2019)

This sounds cool. Too bad I missed it. And I have no AUD. 

Travis Henry Basic Basic D&D is there in D&D. A lot of people were taught D&D. Some taught themselves. No one gets it right. Not One. If you were lucky enough to start young chances are you grabbed some dice scribbled down some indecipherable drivel about how you were raised by wolves and proceeded to play something akin to good guys vs bad guys. (And loot the bodies or don’t because that’s dishonorable IDK) 

If you’re all new to it don’t beat yourself up. A few key points is all you need. You need hit points, Armor Class ( or target number) and dice to roll and a modifier if any. That’s it. All the other rules are superfluous. They’re just there to create a more clear shared picture or experience. If everyone at the table can pretend, you’re on your way. If they can’t, it still can work and frequently does.

The rules are abundant and dense. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea. I even play with people that don’t even like D&D. They just couldn’t stay away from a table full of friends that were chatting and having a good time.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 8, 2019)

AmerginLiath said:


> My initial question seeing this, having not used D&D Beyond, is whether this breakdown includes multiclassing. Fighter especially is a class where I could see characters with a few levels (amid another class) essentially double-counting classes used (with Fighter being so often discussed as the class most dipped).
> 
> I also wonder, given the platform in question, if the length of the campaigns here partly reflect different logistics between in-person and online games — are the sort of games played on this sort of platform often Howe which are played remotely by disconnected groups whose schedules might break down sooner than in-person groups (or simply coordinate playing times less often)?




He speculated that part of these results might be due to D&D Beyonds age, as many campaigns using these tools might simply not be there yet. Still, the preponderance of early level play is congruent with what WotC has repeatedly said about what sells.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> yes, but none before 5e explicitly addressed the issue in terms of game design.



Huh? 4e had explicit design features intended to handle 1 to 30 play. (Though I believe most 4e play was also in heroic tier, and epic tier the least played.)


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 8, 2019)

Travis Henry said:


> At the same time, me and the other fellow were learning the rules for the first time ourselves. I did my best, but the first two sessions were slow and clunky.




This is likely the root of it.

Even light/gateway board games are frustrating and seem overly complicated if no one knows how to play.

There are over 15 million 5e players now. The vast majority of them have been introduced to hobby gaming/RPGs through 5e. I think the biggest factors in 5e's popularity are its intuitive rule set, focus on story, and ease of play/pacing.

It's possible that your group got too bogged down in rules minutiae as you were trying to learn the game. It works remarkably well if you just give it a go without worrying about getting everything right.


----------



## Ratskinner (Feb 8, 2019)

I would suspect that multiple factors contribute to campaigns ending around level 10:
1) complexity increases with level, at some point it becomes too much of a chore.
2) length of story arcs (and how many arcs are suitable to take a character from farmboy to demi-god?
3) approachability of high level characters...and their adventures
4) DM/player fatigue..I know most people in my group don't take notes..."Who is this guy again?"
5) stability of a group over time


----------



## Sadras (Feb 8, 2019)

We are currently playing a long campaign (XPs reset to 0, on level up) and the character's have just passed midway between 10th and 11th. I am really looking forward to roleplaying the higher tiers with big stakes, impressively terrifying opponents, fantastical settings, exploring the multiverse and its history, cosmological puzzles and enigmas as well as uncovering long forgotten secrets, artifacts and 10th level spells.  

I've done the lower levels for far too long, the challenge and excitement for me now lies at the higher levels and getting to use the other half of the monster's manual which has only been but inspirational reading material for the last 30 or so years.


----------



## Raith5 (Feb 8, 2019)

Is there any data there about how many people play WOTC adventures vs homebrewed adventures? If most people use WOTC adventures, then this data is not surprising at all - it is simple product of the adventures they supply (which seem to all top off at 15th level).

I am trying to get my head around whether this is a issue of the supply of adventures specific to 5e or something mechanical with 5e. I stopped playing 3e about 14th because the game more or less broke down because of the imbalance between casters and non-casters, I played 4e to 30th and that worked well at all levels, I have not played high level 5e yet.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2019)

I definitely find 5e plays well at high level; the few problems IME are with mid-level spells like Banishment.

Currently GMing:

Runelords - PCs started at 1st, now 16th-19th after 68 sessions since November 2015 (the 16th is a new PC created at that level when we resumed campaign after a 13 month break; the one PC who started at 1st is 18th now)
Stonehell Dungeon (about to go on hiatus) - PCs are 5th-10th after dozens of games since 2017; new characters start at 5th which keeps advancement limited.
Primeval Thule - PCs 1st-2nd level after 2 sessions. 
Princes of the Apocalypse - PCs 2nd level after 1 session.

My main 5e Wilderlands game saw one PC reach 20th after about 150 online sessions ca 2015-2017; never had an issue with the system at high level though CRs certainly aren't very accurate - at one point he (as Barbarian-19 Berserker) soloed an advanced Empyrean (AC 27 & 2 attacks for 6d6+10 & Stun save DC 15 CON) who was easily CR 25.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Feb 8, 2019)

Travis Henry said:


> I wish there was a *BASIC BASIC D&D* which was still an RPG (not a boardgame), and was still a vigorous engine for exploring the D&D Multiverse.




The closest you will get to that is the FREE Basic Rules you can download from their website. It covers level 1-20 play, but still has less detail than the Starter Set and easier to learn with.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heck, I wonder, looking at the BECMI rules, what percentage of groups never got past E?




I ran BECMI for a couple years weekly, and we got to around 18th level at the end. At that point it definitely felt like the PCs had won the game they started playing at 1st level.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2019)

Prakriti said:


> I wish 5E had said something about that. Instead, people think Tiers 3 and 4 are boring or poorly supported. They're not. It's just that people play them the same way that they play Tiers 1 and 2, which is all wrong. By Tier 3, the PCs are among the most powerful creatures in existence. By Tier 4, they are practically gods. They should be reshaping the world, raising armies, founding kingdoms, unlocking the secrets of the planes, not helping villagers rid themselves of a pesky goblin tribe. But that, for some reason, is how some people choose to play the upper levels. And why not? 5E gives them no indication that it should be any other way.




Just started running 5e Primeval Thule. I love how the Heroic Narratives that replace PHB Backgrounds do very much support the transition to high level play. High level PCs get Followers, at 10th they become clan chiefs and noble rulers, all kinds of stuff that supports traditional 'endgame' play - and being written down in player facing rules it creates player expectation and anticipation, they can plan for long term goals with this in mind.


----------



## jedijon (Feb 8, 2019)

Who fails to use consistent colors and positioning in ANY FORM of radial chart?


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Just started running 5e Primeval Thule. I love how the Heroic Narratives that replace PHB Backgrounds do very much support the transition to high level play. High level PCs get Followers, at 10th they become clan chiefs and noble rulers, all kinds of stuff that supports traditional 'endgame' play - and being written down in player facing rules it creates player expectation and anticipation, they can plan for long term goals with this in mind.



I liked that approach but... if I were running them, each of the higher level elements would get an **if** added that ties gaining the feature to some accomplishment in service to the "narrative." Turn it into not just a new "sub-class" of unlocked features thst ttigger by level but a mapped set of objectives and rewards.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 8, 2019)

I've heard a couple of people saying stuff along the lines of "well, a high level game should involve things like building a stronghold, running a kingdom, etc". I would suggest that this is exactly what players don't want to do. Why do people play D&D? - to escape their everyday lives, mostly. What do my player's everyday lives entail? Responsibility, organisation, management, homemaking. They don't want a fantasy where they do the things they are trying to escape from (with the stakes ramped up to 11)! They want a fantasy where they go out and bash a few naughty monsters.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I've heard a couple of people saying stuff along the lines of "well, a high level game should involve things like building a stronghold, running a kingdom, etc". I would suggest that this is exactly what players don't want to do. Why do people play D&D? - to escape their everyday lives, mostly. What do my player's everyday lives entail? Responsibility, organisation, management, homemaking. They don't want a fantasy where they do the things they are trying to escape from (with the stakes ramped up to 11)! They want a fantasy where they go out and bash a few naughty monsters.



If those are the desires of your players, yup. 5e allows that. 

But for others, the building something that lasts aspect may be equally as rewarding.

The key is I believe to be able to do what your objectives are and picking the campaign style forbit.

It may well be that starting st 5th, running thru 10th thrn reboot is the ideal campaign style for a group.


----------



## Travis Henry (Feb 8, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> "She's not a gamer gearhead - she's an artist. She liked some aspects of the game, but the crunch and sheer detail was too much."
> 
> This requires DMing in a way that doesn't result in a "read all this and learn it" experience.




Well, if that is what is required, then it'd be great if the STARTER SET wasn't presented in that way. If the character sheet only had like six numbers on it, a box for HP and AC, and a line to write your name, then the required light-touch would be obvious. As it stood, we were all trying to figure out the rules and make heads-and-tails of these densely worded character sheets at the same time. It took us like a half hour at least to read through the pregen character sheets.  



> "Ok so you get the basic idea - what kind of hero-to-be would you like to play?" comes **after** some discussions of genre related bits they like.




But all we had was the Starter Set - there are no character creation rules. I did start with questions: which of these class/backgrounds would you like to play? And what is the name of your noble fighter?



> You build some early character for them and hand them a basic summary easy-to-go guide of a character.




I don't know how to build a character. I got Starter Set, and for the second session, printed off some spell list from the Basic Rules.



> not just dumping an official DDB print-out.




It's not a DDB print out. It's the Starter Set character sheet!



> Then you hook them with the play, not the rules, not the system.




Okay, but I am learning how to play too. That's why I bought the Starter Set.



> They say "run across the room, jump the table and grab them..." and as they move the figure you start slipping in "so you jump the table make an athletics check" and "roll d20 plus athletics for the grapple attack to grab."




That sounds great, but even after reading the Starter rule book a couple times, that capacity for rules mastery did not sink in.



> There is a lot of skill needed to bring folks into a game that they are unfamilar with. You don't just sit someone down to play poker and hand them the Roger's Rules and start dealing




Okay, true - yet *I* am learning how to play/DM 5E for the first time too. Are you speaking to me, or to whoever wrote the Starter Set?

I do appreciate your tips, yet I am speaking as a Novice DM who invited two Novice Players to try to learn how to play D&D with the STARTER SET. And that was my experience and observations. I can only imagine the level of complexity at 10th level+.

The good news is that the other player is really digging it, and we have been playing one-on-one feverishly now. Into our sixth session - cleared Crawmaw Hideout and Redbrand Hideout. The basics are starting to become intuitive.

And yet...really, I'm not looking forward to mastering more and more rules and info. I like the D&D world - the adventure sites. And I like the basic D&D "vibe."

Basically, I want a D&D that is still a RPG, and still looks and feels like D&D, and is set in the D&D Multiverse...but which has only one new power/character ability per level. Including only one spell per level.

This "Simply D&D" outline gives some good parameters: https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/simple-rpg


----------



## Travis Henry (Feb 8, 2019)

Wiseblood said:


> If you’re all new to it don’t beat yourself up. A few key points is all you need. You need hit points, Armor Class ( or target number) and dice to roll and a modifier if any. That’s it. All the other rules are superfluous. They’re just there to create a more clear shared picture or experience. If everyone at the table can pretend, you’re on your way. If they can’t, it still can work and frequently does.
> 
> The rules are abundant and dense. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea. I even play with people that don’t even like D&D. They just couldn’t stay away from a table full of friends that were chatting and having a good time.




Thanks Wiseblood.

D&D with just 6 ability scores, hp, and AC...plus one power per level. That's what I'd like.

I do aspire to perhaps build it into a social venue which "non-gamers" might warm to. We'll see. First I gotta figure out how to play! haha


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 8, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> If those are the desires of your players, yup. 5e allows that.
> 
> But for others, the building something that lasts aspect may be equally as rewarding.
> 
> ...




Yeah, and we actually liked the stronghold building part of the game.  I think Paul is mistaken to assume players don't want that.  Maybe he doesn't.  But fortress building and all that is NOT like real life, so I'm not sure why he would compare the two as being similar.  I don't own a castle or an army, do you?  Does he?  Building castles and raising armies is still very much a game, especially when your stronghold gets attacked, or you expand your area of control.  People still love to play Settlers of Cataan even though building farms is pretty common.

*Edit*  And I'd posit that if his players want "to bash monsters", then what better way to do that than to use an entire army?  You can bash lots of heads that way


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

Travis Henry said:


> Well, if that is what is required, then it'd be great if the STARTER SET wasn't presented in that way. If the character sheet only had like six numbers on it, a box for HP and AC, and a line to write your name, then the required light-touch would be obvious. As it stood, we were all trying to figure out the rules and make heads-and-tails of these densely worded character sheets at the same time. It took us like a half hour at least to read through the pregen character sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have not seen or read or purchased the starter set so i cannot make any comments on whether or not it is good. 

But, to me, an RPG is not like a board game or a deck of cards that can be unboxed and played without one player having good knowledge ahead of time of how to play - that person being the GM. 

Almost every RPG product i have ever seen said outright that the Gm **should** read thru completely and get familiar with that product before running it. Even the most basic mudles did that - though likely some of the straight-to-pdf dollar mods dont.

If starter set told you you did not need to do that prep as GM, then hey, that could be a very flawed product.

i am glad whatever that other game you keep posting to is meeting your group's needs. But its not for me and i certainly hope DnD 5e does not go that way myself.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, and we actually liked the stronghold building part of the game.  I think Paul is mistaken to assume players don't want that.  Maybe he doesn't.  But fortress building and all that is NOT like real life, so I'm not sure why he would compare the two as being similar.  I don't own a castle or an army, do you?  Does he?  Building castles and raising armies is still very much a game, especially when your stronghold gets attacked, or you expand your area of control.  People still love to play Settlers of Cataan even though building farms is pretty common.
> 
> *Edit*  And I'd posit that if his players want "to bash monsters", then what better way to do that than to use an entire army?  You can bash lots of heads that way




Yeah - for my current game, i introduced a "lair development potential benefit" at 3rd level and now the bard player (one of the bard players) is now thinking about and wanting to look into establishing a "base" for a potential lair. He knows its a long way off, but that seed of interest has already been planted by showing one benefit hint to them. More will follow.

I anticipate that they will look at every partially ruined "site" they clear out (and the other types of location-based hooks they play thru) with an added layer of interest for "maybe after we clear it we could...".

The beauty is, if they don't, they don't. The game proceeds and the stories occur and that bit drops away - except for when they see others in the world using it.

But if i had not presented it into the game in a way that showed them its possible - for them - i would not have given them the chance to show me what they want and don't want.


----------



## Travis Henry (Feb 8, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> I have not seen or read or purchased the starter set so i cannot make any comments on whether or not it is good.
> 
> But, to me, an RPG is not like a board game or a deck of cards that can be unboxed and played without one player having good knowledge ahead of time of how to play - that person being the GM.
> 
> ...




Whoa whoa there. I read the Starter Rules twice, and the Phandevler Adventure twice. Before starting.
While I'm sure there are people who are quicker than me, I'm not going to feel ashamed for not being a paragon of system mastery from the start.

And there's lots of stuff in the Starter Set which is either not clear or *too detailed*.

For example, not clear for Novice DM: The first encounter is basically like: Here's four goblins. See stats on page such-and-such. But doesn't remind/explain to use the Goblin's Bonus Hide and Bonus Disengage. Sure, the rules for Hide and Disengage and Bonus Action are somewhere in the Rulebook, but geez, for the first encounter, let's give a sentence or two explaining and reminding exactly how this will look in the goblin encounter! 

And the pages-and-pages of write-ups for the various townspeople could've really been distilled into a few bullet points. Name, key info (preferably written out as a sample quote), and adventure seed. Voila.

But this thread is not about that.

I'm just saying that, having played 5E at 1st level, it's no wonder people give up by 10th level. It's fun, but would be more fun (for me) if further streamlined.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

Travis Henry said:


> Whoa whoa there. I read the Starter Rules twice, and the Phandevler Adventure twice. Before starting.
> While I'm sure there are people who are quicker than me, I'm not going to feel ashamed for not being a paragon of system mastery from the start.
> 
> And there's lots of stuff in the Starter Set which is either not clear or *too detailed*.
> ...




Again, cannot comment on the merits and flaws of the starter kit. but if folks new to the game made it to 10th, i woulda thought they had a grasp on it by then. (Excepting of course a recent example where someone started at 5th, sped thru 5-10 and then an encounter hit what was basically an inexperienced party wrong.)

Like i said, if you found a system that does better for you and yours, thats fantastic. long long ago i realized not every game will suit every playstyle, preference or need. There have been a friggin' ton of games i bought, read and dismissed as "not for me" or "not for us" even if they had very good stuff in them.


----------



## Aiden_Keller_ (Feb 8, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> I'm not really sure how Beyond works, is it possible that people are creating level 20 characters as character building exercises? Maybe that plays into why classes are differently popular at different tiers.




I also wondered this....


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 8, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I know they are very cautious about book bloat in this edition, but after 5 years, even I can agree there needs to be a high level campaign book.  Ideally, one that references all the other campaigns in how you can continue and incorporate them (STK, ToA, etc) into a high level campaign.  I mean, there's so much there from each that can easily be put into a high level campaign, it's just begging for it.




Dungeon of the Mad Mage. 

It's good too.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, and we actually liked the stronghold building part of the game.  I think Paul is mistaken to assume players don't want that.  Maybe he doesn't.  But fortress building and all that is NOT like real life, so I'm not sure why he would compare the two as being similar.  I don't own a castle or an army, do you?  Does he?  Building castles and raising armies is still very much a game, especially when your stronghold gets attacked, or you expand your area of control.  People still love to play Settlers of Cataan even though building farms is pretty common.
> 
> *Edit*  And I'd posit that if his players want "to bash monsters", then what better way to do that than to use an entire army?  You can bash lots of heads that way




I think the point being made is often when we start getting into castle building and whatnot, the spreadsheets come out and you have to start tracking all these different variables to figure out how and how long it takes to build the castle.

Great for those who like that sort of thing (which I do) but, I've seen more than a few players whose eyes glaze over when faced with having to detail out how many wall sections the castle wall needs (and then figure out how much that costs), how much to hire however many workers, where to get raw materials, etc. 

I have to admit, I do like how Dragon Heist did it.  It costs X gp to renovate your home.  It costs Y GP to run your business on a weekly basis.  Here's a handy chart to figure out how much you made or lost this week. 

The entire thing is contained in a paragraph.  Instead of handing someone a couple of hundred page long Stronghold Builder's Guide.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Feb 9, 2019)

I ran two campaigns that went to 15th level recently. Both took over 2 years to get there with 3 hours a week of play on Fantasy Grounds.  I will occasionally run adventures for them to get them to 20th level, but I started new campaigns for each of them.


----------



## robus (Feb 9, 2019)

Travis Henry said:


> And there's lots of stuff in the Starter Set which is either not clear or *too detailed*.




Amen to that! I also started out with 5e and the Starter Set and I came away with the impression that it’s a “how to play 5e” (i.e. for experienced players/DMs) rather than “how to play D&D” and that first goblin encounter proved it IMO, way too many moving parts and way to little hand holding. I also almost lost a player early on as he tried to get the hang of his wizard character (from the starter set characters) he’d get visibly frustrated when trying to understand spells and slots. Fortunately he stuck with it and he’s now at level 18, but the start was not smooth at all. Just wanted to let you know you’re not alone in your impression.

Now back to the thread...


----------



## robus (Feb 9, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I know they are very cautious about book bloat in this edition, but after 5 years, even I can agree there needs to be a high level campaign book.  Ideally, one that references all the other campaigns in how you can continue and incorporate them (STK, ToA, etc) into a high level campaign.  I mean, there's so much there from each that can easily be put into a high level campaign, it's just begging for it.




My high level campaign started at level 15 with the Demon Lord incursion of the Underdark, basically I launched it at part 2 of OotA, but instead of a cast of thousands it’s just the PCs vs various Demon Lords and traveling the Underdark using the whole book as a resource (and supplementing with Tome of Beasts and Creature Codex) Generally it’s working well (though a little monotonous in the scenery...)


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 9, 2019)

So 5e has Mutliclassing.  I would expect that due to that the classes would add up to over 100% by tier.  They don't appear to be doing that.  So how are multiclassed characters factored into their stats?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 9, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> I have created hundreds of first level PCs and advanced them up througha few levels as I plotted various designs.  I wonder if they included thse types of characters or excluded them from their statistics.




Yes, they included them. These are characters created on DDB, nothing more. Nearly 9 million of them!


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 9, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So 5e has Mutliclassing.  I would expect that due to that the classes would add up to over 100% by tier.  They don't appear to be doing that.  So how are multiclassed characters factored into their stats?




It seems to me like the only possibilities for mutlclass characters are
1)  They excluded all multiclass characters from their results
2)  A fighter/wizard multiclass gets counted both as a fighter and as a wizard and increases the total of all characters by 2 instead of by 1
3)  They consider the class of your character to be the first level of a class you took
4)  They consider the class of your character to be the highest level of a class you have

So really, whichever option they chose, it likely means their class comparisons are so skewed they are beyond useless (no pun intended)


----------



## S'mon (Feb 10, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> I liked that approach but... if I were running them, each of the higher level elements would get an **if** added that ties gaining the feature to some accomplishment in service to the "narrative." Turn it into not just a new "sub-class" of unlocked features thst ttigger by level but a mapped set of objectives and rewards.




I definitely like the pre-3e approach of "IF you build a fortress/temple/guild/tower THEN you get..."

And IMC I will be modifying the awards a bit to reflect in game events. Eg we have a noble, Aeridnis, of Atlantean House Vorzin in Quodeth, I won't necessarily have hale & hearty Duke Baerad Vorzin keel over when the PC hits 10th level so she can become Duchess. But some kind of social advancement depending on what's been happening in the campaign that gives her access to new resources - becoming the Court Wizard, Grand Vizier, a senior Panjandrum etc all seem possibilities, or maybe Mistress of the Onther Tower, the great library of Quodeth - her grandfather runs it currently but he is getting on a bit... I could even see her marry into another noble house and bring it under Vorzin control.


----------



## Quickleaf (Feb 10, 2019)

Raith5 said:


> Is there any data there about how many people play WOTC adventures vs homebrewed adventures? If most people use WOTC adventures, then this data is not surprising at all - it is simple product of the adventures they supply (which seem to all top off at 15th level).
> 
> I am trying to get my head around whether this is a issue of the supply of adventures specific to 5e or something mechanical with 5e. I stopped playing 3e about 14th because the game more or less broke down because of the imbalance between casters and non-casters, I played 4e to 30th and that worked well at all levels, I have not played high level 5e yet.




Chris Perkins spoke at GameHole Con 2015 and mentioned this topic, referring to internal WotC data... 

[SECTION]A great bulk of those who play D&D run homebrew settings. But of those home-brew campaigns, over half of those homebrewers do pillage from other settings ... 15% or 50% of the world they've created has hawked stuff from other worlds. They're comfortable pillaging our products for ideas. That homebrew number, I can't remember the exact percentage, but I think it's like 55% homebrew. And then it's like 35% Forgotten Realms, and then everything else ... Very few people right now, turns out, running Dark Sun campaigns. A sliver of a sliver. Very few people running Hollow World campaigns. Very few people are running Mystara campaigns. It pretty much goes Homebrew, Forgotten Realms, I think Greyhawk's at 5% ands then everybody else is at 2% or 1%. [/SECTION]

There was also a survey run by Mike Shea over at Sly Flourish, wherein out of 6,600 respondents on primary adventures used, 64% answered personal adventures and 36% answered published adventures.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 10, 2019)

Blue said:


> First, there's no separation between played characters and try-a-build characters, so we don't know this is the proper breakdown for campaigns.  I wonder if they can remove characters that have never been given XP.



*No, because of Milestone leveling*. I have 2 active characters and in both Campaigns we use milestone leveling. In one the GM counts XP each session but assigns it to the whole group to get an idea when we should level and after we meat an XP requirement and complete our current mission resting in a safe comfortable place with downtime ...then we all level. Like a time jump between seasons of a TV show. In the other group all the player rotate into the GM slot once per level and we level up when all 4 players have run a story arch at that level. The point of the campaign being to train each other how to GM, experience a variety of play under different GMs, and test different styles of play. As each GM turn is a different "mission" we can change Player characters back and forth as well as styles while maintaining a collective world (Forgotten realms so we have shared lore references and maps). That means non of our characters would be represented in data as active characters. We play one session in each campaign once a month using D&D Beyond, damaging, healing, buying, selling, and updating notes. Checking for those changes and confirming they are assigned to a campaign it perhaps the best metric I can think off. 

*I would not mind, if they let us mark a character as an unplayed Alt, concept building, and/or inactive character.* That would improve their metrics so they would not track them for data. Marking active character's could be misleading as I don't plan *not* to play a character, groups just fall apart, schedules conflict, GMs move away, and characters don't get played because the campaign does continue.



Blue said:


> For that, it's still an interesting insight that matches my own observations, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of possible weaknesses in the data.




Sure, but I don't think Fighter #1, Rogue #2, Cleric #3, Wizard #4 or human due to human variant are any surprise to anyone.

… I do wonder what the X day timer is for played characters since I have 2 once a month sessions, Its possible for me to play at the binging of one month and the end of the next so unless do 60 days its very possible that at any moment one or the other of my characters is not counted. Also, the November/December time frame is likely to make a large number of characters drop off. I would like it if they marked the slide "Characters played in the last 120 days" for quarterly players, by monthly players, monthly players, and weekly players to all be represented for the most part.

This in mind I put a Feature request in at D&D Beyond to see if we can get this added.


----------



## lkj (Feb 11, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Yes, they included them. These are characters created on DDB, nothing more. Nearly 9 million of them!




That's not quite right. They filtered based on metrics that indicated whether or not a character was being used. That included things like whether hit points changed and such. I don't know the details. I'm sure it's not perfect. But they did take a shot at only including 'active' characters.

AD

AD


----------



## lostsanityreturned (Feb 12, 2019)

lyle.spade said:


> Well said. I wonder if part of it is time, as well - that is, the time spent playing in and running a campaign that starts at 1st level, and how a typical campaign only lasts a few months, at most, before it gasses out for some reason or another. I've started a few campaigns at Tier 2, and even a few at 3, and they almost always tend to come to an end after 5-6 months, for any variety of reasons related to the game itself or life. Long campaigns will lead to higher character levels in DnD, and so perhaps that fact is a shadow cast by the lifespan of DnD campaigns, rather than deliberate efforts to not turn into superheroes with swords.
> 
> For me, I don't like high-level play for that very reason: the characters are not relatable and the stories, in order to challenge the characters mechanically, easily turn into 'can you top this' encounter-focused affairs that lose the story.




That seems really depressing dude, keep trying to find a group that doesn't fizzle out. The only times my games have ended was because of a large life event last year or when a party wiped and it seemed more apt to have the story end there. 
Oh and when a player passed, that was a bit of a shock.

But fizzling out is not a good thing to be expecting.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 13, 2019)

lostsanityreturned said:


> That seems really depressing dude, keep trying to find a group that doesn't fizzle out. The only times my games have ended was because of a large life event last year or when a party wiped and it seemed more apt to have the story end there.
> Oh and when a player passed, that was a bit of a shock.
> 
> But fizzling out is not a good thing to be expecting.




 When I was younger a long term stable group was the default. Not 6 months with the same people is long term. 

 People move, kids get sick, people get sick of each other, life/wife etc.


----------



## Alcamtar (Feb 14, 2019)

If you want a BASIC BASIC D&D, you might take a look at games like Basic Fantasy RPG. It is based on the much simpler form of D&D popular in the 1980s. Basic Fantasy is similar enough to 5E that it is familiar, gives plenty of options, and is only $5 on Amazon (or free if you download the PDF). There are lots of adventures and stuff for it.

Be aware that while it sort of resembles 5E it is not directly compatible with it, and doesn't have the same level of tactical play as 5E does. That means that running 5E adventures would require some adaptation. There are a metric ton of adventures for older D&D though -- and lots of people still creating them to this day. Those old adventures are largely the same source that inspired 5E, so you're still exploring the "D&D multiverse."

There are lots of other old-style games like Basic Fantasy, but for a new player I think BFRPG is probably the easiest and simplest to start playing with, and has an active community supporting it.

Low Fantasy Gaming is in a similar mold to Basic Fantasy and is inspired by the same sources, but I believe it uses 5E as it's core rules engine. I'm not sure it's completely compatible with either 5E or with the older games, so not sure how much support it has. But if you really like 5E rules and enjoy writing your own adventures, it might be in your sweet spot.


----------



## Ian Cotlear1 (Feb 16, 2019)

I have ran campaigns that have lasted for over a decade, with characters reaching levels in the mid-20s. But my world was full of level 10 peasants. They were still cleaning out basements at that level.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> When I was younger a long term stable group was the default. Not 6 months with the same people is long term.
> 
> People move, kids get sick, people get sick of each other, life/wife etc.



On the other hand, for decades and on I was "the only gm" and I never got to play. 

Now I still GM the long run group campaigns and play in other "games". One lasted 3 months from 1st thru 3rd. Another is starting this week back at first and maybe it wont last more than 3-4 months too (hope it will)  but that will be more games "played" by me then I have played in the previous two decades of the four I have been GMing.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 16, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> On the other hand, for decades and on I was "the only gm" and I never got to play.
> 
> Now I still GM the long run group campaigns and play in other "games". One lasted 3 months from 1st thru 3rd. Another is starting this week back at first and maybe it wont last more than 3-4 months too (hope it will)  but that will be more games "played" by me then I have played in the previous two decades of the four I have been GMing.




Yeah I have barely played most editions of D&D as a player.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 16, 2019)

Alcamtar said:


> If you want a BASIC BASIC D&D, you might take a look at games like Basic Fantasy RPG. It is based on the much simpler form of D&D popular in the 1980s. Basic Fantasy is similar enough to 5E that it is familiar, gives plenty of options, and is only $5 on Amazon (or free if you download the PDF). There are lots of adventures and stuff for it.
> 
> Be aware that while it sort of resembles 5E it is not directly compatible with it, and doesn't have the same level of tactical play as 5E does. That means that running 5E adventures would require some adaptation. There are a metric ton of adventures for older D&D though -- and lots of people still creating them to this day. Those old adventures are largely the same source that inspired 5E, so you're still exploring the "D&D multiverse."
> 
> ...




Lfrpg is pretty in between 5e and osr dnd. I am using The Midlands for lfrpg in my 5e Primeval Thule game and conversion is very very easy, eg it gives me all the monster attribute numbers.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 16, 2019)

On campaign duration, I find groups tend to split up after about 2 years on average. My 5.5 year 1-30 4e Loudwater campaign only had one original player at the end.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 16, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Lfrpg is pretty in between 5e and osr dnd. I am using The Midlands for lfrpg in my 5e Primeval Thule game and conversion is very very easy, eg it gives me all the monster attribute numbers.




LFRPG says (from the free PDF at https://lowfantasygaming.com/freepdf/)

_WHAT IS LOW
FANTASY GAMING?
Low Fantasy Gaming (“LFG”) is a tabletop roleplaying game built for sword & sorcery
adventures in low magic worlds.
Rules Light
LFG is rules light, with a heavy emphasis on
Games Master (“GM”) rulings. It’s a hybrid of
old school and modern game design, based on
the 1d20 Open Game Licence.
Fast & Engaging Combat
Combat is designed to be fast and engaging, with
minimal waiting between turns. Creativity is
encouraged via martial exploits and magic.
Dangerous & Gritty
Battle is genuinely dangerous and every skirmish
takes a toll. The threat of serious injury or death
is never far away.
A “Realistic” World
LFG worlds tend to mimic our own classical or
medieval periods. Humans are the default player
race. Magic and fantastic monsters exist, but are
very rare.
Dark & Dangerous Magic
Magic is not only rare, it is dark and inherently
dangerous. Sorcery is a power not meant for
mortals, and adventurers engage with it at their
peril.
Riches & Glory
LFG is about exploring the unknown; delving
into the lost places of the world to unearth new
mysteries. Player characters are not epic heroes
charged with saving the world; they are bold
adventurers seeking riches and glory.
Open World
LFG is made for short, episodic adventures in an
open world. Mechanics and random tables
support GM improvisation, empowering the
referee to handle any situation or side trek.

What LFG is Not
This book does not describe a new low magic
fictional setting. It is a generic ruleset for use with
published low magic worlds (some examples
appear at page 177) or a world of your own
creation. With some tweaking, LFG could handle
most fantasy settings, but the system assumes low
fantasy._


----------



## ParanoydStyle (Feb 18, 2019)

Is this because...I'm guessing that this is because all of the published and Adventurer's League adventures are (as far as I can tell) overwhelmingly 5th level and lower, and most players playing and reporting in officially through D&D beyond are also playing published/AL adventures ? That is the explanation that makes the most sense to me. Especially because (unlike in previous editions of the game) there is _precious little_ difference between a 10th and a 15th level character. You might get access to more powerful spells if you're a magic user or some cool class features in any class, but for the most part the bonus you're adding to your dice is one or two points higher which really does not feel like a big difference.

(Wizard is my favorite class and I am sad they don't get no metamagics no more.)

Anyway, if anyone knows of any high-level oriented content WotC has published, would you let me know about it?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 18, 2019)

ParanoydStyle said:


> Is this because...I'm guessing that this is because all of the published and Adventurer's League adventures are (as far as I can tell) overwhelmingly 5th level and lower, and most players playing and reporting in officially through D&D beyond are also playing published/AL adventures ? That is the explanation that makes the most sense to me. Especially because (unlike in previous editions of the game) there is _precious little_ difference between a 10th and a 15th level character. You might get access to more powerful spells if you're a magic user or some cool class features in any class, but for the most part the bonus you're adding to your dice is one or two points higher which really does not feel like a big difference.
> 
> (Wizard is my favorite class and I am sad they don't get no metamagics no more.)
> 
> Anyway, if anyone knows of any high-level oriented content WotC has published, would you let me know about it?




Dungeon of the Mad Mage. It's their latest adventure, it goes to level 20, and I think it's excellent.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 18, 2019)

I personally as DM don't like to run campaigns much past 10th level.  At lower level I can ad hoc an encounter easily and throw something together balanced and fun, but as they get higher and higher and higher I have to start tailoring individual enemies and set pieces to present a reasonable challenge, and it gets more time consuming on my prep end than I typically like to do.  Of course that's just me, and I'm sure other DMs have no problem with bigger, more complex fights or they enjoy the minutiae of detailed encounter building.  

I remember when I ran Phandelver, the 6th level PCs went back a second time with about 20 NPC knights from Neverwinter, and 5e handled this massive group easily, there was no problem at all making it a challenge even with such a skewed CR setup.


----------

