Results of a small online survey on the level range of play

[Wasp]

Hi everyone!

Over the weekend I started a small online survey about the level range players want to play in and the level range they do actually play in. The survey is still open and can be found here: https://s.surveyplanet.com/z6ubes61

I would like to present the results here for discussion after 142 people have participated.

Q1: What level range do you normally play in during a campaign?

Average Low Level: 01.7
Average High Level 12.2

Low Level TOP 3:
01: 65%
02: 06%
03: 24%

High Level TOP 4:
20: 17%
12: 16%
10: 16%
08: 11%

What level range would you want to play in during a campaign?

Average Low Level: 02.7
Average High Level 15.9

Low Level TOP 3:
01: 44%
03: 31%
05: 12%

High Level TOP 4:
20: 44%
15: 11%
12: 09%
10: 09%

Q3: If the two don’t match: Why don’t the level range you want to play in and actually play in match?

(I didn't manage to evaluate this write-in question yet, but Q9 may give some indication)

Q4: What’s the highest level you have played to in a campaign?
Q5: At what levels have you played one shots?
Q6: What are or would be your favorite levels for playing one shots?
Q7: In general what are your favorite levels for play?
Q8: In general what are your least favorite levels for play?

https://i.postimg.cc/760FYT3w/Level-Range.jpg

Q9: Why does your campaign usually end?

Scheduling conflicts/Time: 57%
The story is finished: 54%
Wanting to start something new: 43%
Losing interest/getting bored: 26%
Conflicts within the group: 14%
No interest in higher level play: 14%
Players move: 11%
Other: 11%

So... what do you make of the results?

[Mastikator]

What do I make of the results? It confirms the idea that if you start a campaign at level 1, move to level 2 at the end of the session, or maybe even level 3 at the end of the session! After that it's fine to hover around 3-11

[Wasp]

I find it interesting that many, many people seem to want their campaign to go to level 20 - while people in general don't actually seem to enjoy playing at higher levels that much. That's an interesting contradiction I feel...

[Rukelnikov]

I find it interesting that many, many people seem to want their campaign to go to level 20 - while people in general don't actually seem to enjoy playing at higher levels that much. That's an interesting contradiction I feel...

Well, when I filled the poll I put 20 because theres no option for "I dont care what level we end at".

I explained it in the text answer. Basically character level and campaign ending have not that much relation for me, as long as the campaign is interesting I wanna keep playing, and if its done, then its done. Maybe if the option was "at least level X" then I'd have put... probably 5, since I'd like to at least have seen some growth thru it.

[PhantomSoul]

I find it interesting that many, many people seem to want their campaign to go to level 20 - while people in general don't actually seem to enjoy playing at higher levels that much. That's an interesting contradiction I feel...

In addition to Rukelnikov's answer, it could be that the people who haven't tried epic-level play are those who want the campaign to reach epic-level play. It would be interesting to see how cross-question responses compare! (There's quite probably no contradiction at all, just like the bump at 20th level play for oneshots could make perfect sense even for people who don't want their campaign to reach that far.)

[Kurt Kurageous]

While epic level seems fun, it's a different mind/skillset for the DM.

Every DM has a lot of experience running games from 1-5. Fewer DMs get to run mid-tier adventures as games tend to break up/change. And the number of times a DM runs epic is...much smaller than that.

Personally, I've not had much DMxp beyond 10th level. And I don't enjoy 8-10 as much because very little that is common is any kind of threat to their mortality. Why bother with a fight with a goblin war band, or even a goblin village? The combat will be one-sided and the party will LR afterwards and...that was a waste of table time.

I know the world is not supposed to level up with the players in some way, but it always has in my experience. The danger according to DMG/XGtE for traps tends to level as well. The DMG has thoughts on this regarding the scale/scope of the current adventure (something like hamlet/village, city, nation, world, extra-planar).

As far as a guide to how fast, I recommend you do the study I did. Using DMG, note xp award for each adventuring day by level. 1st level gets 300, so becoming second level after the first full adventuring day (6-8 encounters). When you add that daily number to the previous xp, you see progression to 5 is very rapid, and 20th level is reached around day 31.

My conclusion is that DMs don't give out as much xp as they should to move the game along. Whether this is because of poor planning by the DM or the players perhaps caring more about non-xp things (live roleplaying for 20-30 min, strategizing for an hour before a fight) then as long as everyone's having fun...

How much time does a player need to learn how to use their new abilities and then integrate them with the party? That's how long it should take to level up. It's supposed to keep the game fresh for the players and the DM. It doesn't take long at lower levels and is almost instant for experienced players.

So I push xp, level them up quickly, and encourage moving the story along in an attempt to get the 6-8 encounters/day thing between long rests. This rarely happens, but it is my goal in writing an adventure.

[Pildion]

Hmm, between the charts showing the one shot levels played at, and peoples favorite levels to play at, I might just start next game at level 3, instead of level 1. It would also help the level 1 insta death issue.

[Rukelnikov]

While epic level seems fun, it's a different mind/skillset for the DM.

Every DM has a lot of experience running games from 1-5. Fewer DMs get to run mid-tier adventures as games tend to break up/change. And the number of times a DM runs epic is...much smaller than that.

Personally, I've not had much DMxp beyond 10th level. And I don't enjoy 8-10 as much because very little that is common is any kind of threat to their mortality. Why bother with a fight with a goblin war band, or even a goblin village? The combat will be one-sided and the party will LR afterwards and...that was a waste of table time.

IME DMing epic levels and even near epic (17+) was an awesome excercise as DM, it forces you to get creative because the ammount of tools at the PCs dispossal is staggering, and the in world weight they can throw around is comparably immense. The reactivity you'll acquire DMing a campaign at such levels will remain with you even for lower level ones later on.

And yeah, as you noticed, you shouldn't run a combat for a bunch of goblins, do a couple rolls in general to see how much of a challenge the goblins actually were, and skip running the combat (unless there's a reason those particular goblins could pose a threat to the party). If the result of a given combat is a forgone conclusion, you shouldn't run it as a combat, it takes far longer and usually adds very little.

[Ogre Mage]

I am glad to see that I am not the only one who hates 1st level characters.

Most campaigns end around 12th level. I've seen other surveys, both on this forum and elsewhere, which back up this conclusion.

Tier 2 is the sweet spot of D&D. Levels 5-10 are the six most popular levels in this survey. Level 5 is the most popular for a one-shot. This conclusion is also supported by surveys I have seen elsewhere. Tier 2 is a good time to slow down level progression since most players seem to enjoy it. In contrast, I want to get out of Tier 1 fast as possible.

[LudicSavant]

I find it interesting that many, many people seem to want their campaign to go to level 20 - while people in general don't actually seem to enjoy playing at higher levels that much. That's an interesting contradiction I feel...

One thing I notice about these figures: it looks like a large proportion of the respondents that say level 20 is a least favorite level are also respondents who say they have never managed to get to high levels. I think that perhaps some people just clicked on levels they haven't played because of course they enjoyed those less than levels they actually got to play and enjoy!

We got 44% saying they WANT TO play to level 20, 25% saying they had played to level 20 in a campaign (not a one shot), 10% saying it was one of their favorite levels.

We also got 28% saying they played level 20 in one a shot, and ALSO 28% saying it was their favorite level for one shots.

[Wasp]

. I think that perhaps some people just clicked on levels they haven't played because of course they enjoyed those less than levels they actually got to play and enjoy!
I feel this assumption is a bit unfair. Even if you haven't played at lvl 20 yet, you can still rationally say you don't like it, it hasn't to be some kind of flaw in your thinking. Because from the discussions I have seen many, many people just don't like the scale or style of play for very high levels. They want to go on a quest given to them, fight the orcs/bandits/goblins and rescue the village and not hop from plane to plane, fight gods and shape the fate of the world.

It could also be true that many like level 20 for a one shot because those tend to be encounter heavy without having the baggage of running a campaign that works completely different than at low levels.

I would do an analysis of how the answers relate to each other, unfortunately I didn't read the terms of the service before setting up the survey and to export the data, you need a monthly subscription. Maybe when I have more time I'll pull those answers per user manually.

[LudicSavant]

perhaps *snip*

I feel this assumption *snip*

That's not an assumption, it's a hypothesis. Perhaps this may seem persnickety of me to point out, but I consider the distinction important.

Here's what the word perhaps means.

used to express uncertainty or possibility.

Here's what the word assumption means.

a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Do you see the problem?


Because from the discussions I have seen many, many people just don't like the scale or style of play for very high levels. They want to go on a quest given to them, fight the orcs/bandits/goblins and rescue the village and not hop from plane to plane, fight gods and shape the fate of the world. Yep, there are definitely people like that, and I would hypothesize that this also accounts for some number of respondents.

[Wasp]

While epic level seems fun, it's a different mind/skillset for the DM.
Yeah, that seems to be a common feeling expressed online, not only from DMs but also players - liking the fun stuff they can do, especially in combat, but also feeling a bit of a disconnect regarding the style and requirements. Like a feeling of being overwhelmed.

[BoutsofInsanity]

The most interesting thing to me is the favorite and least favorite levels of play.

To borrow from 4e, the Paragon Tier is where people really like to sit at as a gamers. And that most people don't like those early levels. Pulling in that information should help inform the Dungeon Masters on where they should focus the primary aspects of their campaigns. That sweet spot of 5th to 13th level is where the system thrums.

Which makes a lot of sense to me. The High Level Magics while good, aren't the game breaking 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells. The short rest classes have enough of their resources and items to do cool stuff, you can genuinely face world ending threats with enough planning and time, while also understanding it's not a cake walk.

You can still challenge players with regular tactics and warbands while also throwing young adult dragons at the party.

Ill be interested to see how my high level game goes. I'm literally on the cusp of running the second half of my game from 11th level to 20th for a campaign. (Gritty Realism and some house rules). So playing into those epic levels will be interesting.

Love the survey.

[Keravath]

I find it interesting that many, many people seem to want their campaign to go to level 20 - while people in general don't actually seem to enjoy playing at higher levels that much. That's an interesting contradiction I feel...

I think there are a few reasons.

1) Running a high level campaign where the wizard or the opponents have Wish and other similar flexibility with spells can be more challenging for the DM in terms of creating a fun, interesting and challenging encounter or plot line. Players at high level want to be able to use their cool toys creatively which requires the DM to be very flexible, creative and spontaneous running the game because it becomes almost impossible to anticipate all the possible responses of the characters to any given situation. As a result, a DM who has developed a scenario and is only prepared for it turning out exactly as they have envisaged the plot line could well have trouble running a high level campaign. At lower levels this isn't as much of an issue since the player options are far more restrictive.

TL;DR Having a good experience playing at high levels is much more dependent on DM skills.

2) Players often look at what their character can become at level 20 when starting at level 1. Some people have an entire build or character development in mind. As a result, many players want to play the character all the way to 20. However, I think a much smaller fraction of folks have actually had the opportunity.

My highest level character is at level 17 and it is from AL so I don't have to depend on a specific group meeting every week in order for the character to advance. The character made it to level 11 or 12 playing ToA and then have played a number of AL modules and adventures after that to continue advancing. If the character was not from AL, there is a decent chance it would have been retired after the ToA campaign if the DM did not want to homebrew some sort of continuation.

Which leads into point 3

3) The majority of published adventures and campaign content end between level 10-15. Candlekeep Mysteries only goes to 17. The only one I know of with level 20 content is Dungeon of the Mad Mage and my impression is that it is dungeon all the time which doesn't provide a lot of variety. In addition, motivation for powerful characters to adventure has to come from the characters interacting with the world. By the time characters reach level 10-15, most are incredibly wealthy for the world they live in. Earning coin is no longer really a decent motivation for adventuring which is where an over arching plot line or two that can drive the game to level 20 and beyond is required. Published content doesn't provide that and as mentioned above, creating a homebrew high level campaign requires a lot of work.

[LudicSavant]

So... what do you make of the results?

Well, we've got about 1 in 3 respondents saying they've made it to tier 4 in a campaign. And of the people who have actually gotten there, a lot of people seem to like it. And about 1 in 2 say they want to reach tier 4 in their campaigns.

It makes for an interesting contrast against a certain few vocal individuals on the forum who claim without evidence that nobody reaches, nor cares about, high level play and uses that to try to stop anyone from talking about it.


I find it interesting that many, many people seem to want their campaign to go to level 20 - while people in general don't actually seem to enjoy playing at higher levels that much. That's an interesting contradiction I feel...

It doesn't appear to be a contradiction -- it looks like there's a strong overlap between the groups "has never been able to try level 20" and "says level 20 is among their less favorite levels." So for whatever reason (we can only speculate), we've got some folks voting negative on content they've never tried.

We're seeing things like 28% of respondents saying they played level 20 in a one shot and 28% saying that level 20 is or would be their favorite level for a one shot. And 25% saying they have reached 20 in a campaign, and 10% saying that it's among their favorite levels.

At least among the responses here, it seems to me that people who are actually trying it seem to like it.

[Rukelnikov]

Well, we've got about 1 in 3 respondents saying they've made it to tier 4 in a campaign. And of the people who have actually gotten there, a lot of people seem to like it. And about 1 in 2 say they want to reach tier 4 in their campaigns.

It makes for an interesting contrast against a certain few vocal individuals on the forum who claim without evidence that nobody reaches, nor cares about, high level play and uses that to try to stop anyone from talking about it.

Do note, that "have reched level 20 in a campaign" doesn't mean regularly, I've played 3 or 4 campaigns past lvl 20, but that's not usually the norm, most campaigns I've played haven't reached tier 4. So having 33% people having reached 20th level in a campaign doesn't preclude for instance "only 5% of campaigns ever get to 20th level" being also true.

[LudicSavant]

Do note, that "have reched level 20 in a campaign" doesn't mean regularly

I did specifically note that. Hence me saying that people who didn't vote that have not gotten there even once.

[loki_ragnarock]

It doesn't appear to be a contradiction -- it looks like there's a strong overlap between the groups "has never been able to try level 20" and "says level 20 is among their less favorite levels." So for whatever reason (we can only speculate), we've got some folks voting negative on content they've never tried.
I mean, it's anecdotal and all, but when I responded I was definitely in the "has done it" and "doesn't prefer it" crowd of respondents.

Might be an outlier, of course.

[Rukelnikov]

I did specifically note that. Hence me saying that people who didn't vote that have not gotten there even once.

Oh, I don't see any of that in the comment, I'm either blind or didn't catch your meaning correctly.

EDIT: Ok, re-reading it, I noticed the second part

[deljzc]

Each tier really has a different style of game management and requirements to be a good and entertaining adventure.

Tier-1 has to be somewhat quick because players are squishy. Combat at low levels has to be somewhat infrequent and protected. Most of the encounters are very common and restricted to about 10% of the monster manual (so players see them all the time). Ideal adventures as low levels are actually fun role-playing exercises with a mix of fun adventures. XP's and progression should be based on linear achievements and progressing the story. Getting a good understanding of your group, the DM, etc. is all important.

Tier-2 has and always will be where most of the fun is. This is the tier Gary Gygax really built the game around. Almost half the Monster Manual opens up to use. There are huge variety of monsters, bosses, combat scenarios, etc. These are the levels classes start to specialize (so not all Fighters have to be pretty much the same like in Tier 1). Combat in Tier-2 is arguably the most enjoyable and challenging. Players aren't quite at "optimal specialization" and because there are such a variety of foes, matchups can present problems, even for the most experienced players. Most games end in Tier-2 (or slightly after, level 11-13).

Tier-3 is when the players start to HAVE to interact with the campaign backdrop and this is when it gets hard for DM's to world build logical campaigns and adventures without disrupting what they've built. Players now are strong enough and capable enough to do things on their own without the party so there is often a disconnect between what players want to do and what the party wants to do and what the DM wants them to do. Downtime "what if" is sometimes more fun that actually taking on a big bad boss. DM'ing is hard and almost impossible in this tier without good players (another reason so many end their campaigns before reaching this tier).

Tier-4 becomes fun again, but it is really a different game. Now it's superheroes and what-if boss fights. Can we fight this god, demi-god, demon? Most of the adventures are so over-the-top it's like watching a Marvel Movie. Save the world almost has to be part of it. Specialization is rampant. Damage burst and damage per round are ridiculous. Wish is involved. I would suspect about 35-40% of the regular posters here are interested in this tier, but only about 10% of actually D&D players are or even care to get here, other than maybe just making up pre-made 20th level characters to try a fight for fun one night.

To me, levels 1-3 are really "Tier-1" and that is finding a good storyline based introductory adventure to be completed in 4-5 sessions. Some small-town save the day type stuff that gives the characters a pretty good nest egg of money.

Levels 4-12 are the "GAME" as originally designed and true role playing and D&D like most layman thinks of it.

Levels 12-16 are political adventures (if characters want to continue) and quests for great magic items.

Levels 16+ are kind of silly time where you just want to optimize and see how strong you can really get and play make-believe battles against gods for fun.

[OldTrees1]

Okay, most campaigns start at very low level (95% start in 1st-3rd) and few campaigns end due to level concerns (14%). Assuming most campaigns are continuous (no levels skipped) then we can conclude the typical end level is not representative of desired level ranges. This is further supported by desired end level pushing higher than expected end level. Reaching 20th happens to 17% but was desired 44%. 17% -> 44% is a large jump.

The highest level played data is skewed towards 20th level. This makes sense since that is the ceiling. Ignoring that outlier we see a rather flat curve. I would conclude highest level might be related more to IRL than to the level itself. Back to the 20th level outlier, only 25% has reached 20th level. I think this is a factor of few campaigns ending due to level concerns (14%) and campaigns generally starting at very low level (95% start in 1st-3rd).


The favorite levels and least favorite levels data roughly matches peak to valley. This is not guaranteed but exceptions would be significant and worth further examination (for example 2 populations that have opposite likes but matching dislikes). Due to the low sample size I am not sure if 2nd level is an example of one of these exceptions.


However why do 44% want to reach 20th but 20th is the 3rd least liked level (after 1st and 2nd)? I have 2 hypotheses
1) Personally I like high level but I feel WotC's high level output is lower quality. I can want a high quality high level and dislike a low quality high level. This would cause me to rate reaching high level as desired but also rate it as one of my least favorite levels.
2) What if there are 2 populations. One wants high level and the other doesn't? That could also match the data.

[Dark.Revenant]

The only one I know of with level 20 content is Dungeon of the Mad Mage and my impression is that it is dungeon all the time which doesn't provide a lot of variety.

Apparently, without the DM giving you bonus XP for things, it's extremely difficult to actually reach 20th level by the end; it's really a 1-17 campaign with the possibility of overage.