Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level

[neonchameleon]

Going right back to the start of the thread the answer as to why almost all editions of D&D fall apart past 10th level is because (with the exception of 4e which was redesigned from the ground up) D&D as designed by Arneson and developed by Gygax had a 10th level soft-cap (a look at the AD&D rules should make this pretty obvious). D&D falls apart after this point because no one has redesigned the endgame properly.

If you go back to the original D&D game it was built in almost explicit tiers. It is not an accident that in AD&D you both (a) stop getting extra hit dice after level 9 or level 10 and (b) as a class feature get a castle a small army and some land, a thieves guild, a wizard's tower, a cathedral and congregation, or whatever else your class says. And the XP needed to level up after this point becomes absurd and quite intentionally so.

The tiers are as follows:

1. Levels 1-4 or so: We need to band together
2. Levels 4-10 or so: Adventurers on the prowl
3. Level 10+ or so: By this axe I rule

Levels 1-4: We need to band together

Low level oD&D and early 1e was a game of hireling management in which your most important statistic was Charisma - and how many other poor schmucks you could bring into the dungeon with you on your looting expedition. (Looting? At 1XP for 1GP you'd gain three times as much XP for treasure as for monster killing - so smart play was to avoid the monsters and grab the money). War Dogs were stronger than first level fighters. And the name of the game was going in mob-handed with a couple of dozen of you (including NPCs); yes the wizard probably died to a single hit - but with half a dozen people standing in front of them things had gone badly wrong by that point. And yes the wizard only had one spell to start with - but this wasn't such a problem when they spent most of their time directing their NPCs.

Oh, and your character power was your loot. Fighters got swords - and as a wizard your entire spellbook save one single spell was what you had looted in previous adventures.

Levels 4-10: Adventurers on the prowl

What we consider the core D&D gameplay with the small group of adventurers only really happened between levels 5 and 9 in the game designed by Dave Arneson and developed by E. Gary Gygax. At this point most hirelings simply amounted to chaff so there wasn't much point bringing them along. (This made 5th level actually pretty dangerous for the wizard who of course had to get all their spells as treasure the DM had given them).

Levels 10+: By this Axe I Rule

It's important to remember that the highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 13. At level 10 the PCs as a class feature all gain holdings. They become major political movers and shakers - and level progression falls off a cliff so adventuring isn't really worth it. Occasionally they come out of retirement to take on something like the Queen of the Demonweb Pits. But only occasionally. You also won't see much higher than 6th level spells (remember that as I said Sir Robilar was the highest level PC in Greyhawk - a 13th level Fighter).

Or in short you have a level soft-cap in AD&D at around 10th level. Hitting 10th level in AD&D is fairly close to hitting the level cap in World of Warcraft - the game changes at that point from in WoW's case levelling to endgame raiding and in AD&D's case from levelling to politics.

And with the game capping out at about level 13 the higher level spells are there to give the BBEG something to make them really scary. BECMI on the other hand also has tiers - Basic being the same, Expert going up to level 14 as adventurers, Companion being By This Axe, and Master is a mess of optional rules and things that didn't fit earlier (think Unearthed Arcana) and Questing for Immortality - or one of the attempts to expand tier 2 play into tier 3 for people who didn't want to play realm management.

However. In 1985 DL1 was for many reasons extremely popular and influential and reflected and massively increased trends. It tried to run the Adventurers On The Prowl playstyle from level 1 onwards and did it via things like the Obscure Death Rule because it didn't want two dozen NPCs in the Fellowship of the Lance. 2e took this going forward so 2e low level play is a meatgrinder and the rules advise you to fudge. (If you think 4e builds up the encounter, look at the 2e DMG sometime). 2e kept the 1e 10th level soft-cap with followers being a class feature - but deprecated them. 2e works at above 10th level if you follow Gygax and Arneson's rules rather than Zeb Cook's advice.

3.0 decided to entirely remove the soft-cap and say the game ran from levels 1-20. Instead of buildings and resources being endgame play they became a feat (leadership). This makes as much sense as saying "World of Warcraft now goes to level 150. And we're going to keep all the raid dungeons as they are." Of course the game falls apart there. 3.5 and Pathfinder didn't change this.

4e made a nod to reintroducing tiers - but the tiers are nowhere near as compelling as Gygax's tiers. The 4e tiers amount to "Holywood Action Heroes", "Mythological Legends", and "We're going to call this an epic destiny and give very vague pointers that way"

And I have no idea what 5e thinks it's doing with its not-a-level-cap.

[barna10]

Spoiler: Long quote from neonchameleon

Show

Going right back to the start of the thread the answer as to why almost all editions of D&D fall apart past 10th level is because (with the exception of 4e which was redesigned from the ground up) D&D as designed by Arneson and developed by Gygax had a 10th level soft-cap (a look at the AD&D rules should make this pretty obvious). D&D falls apart after this point because no one has redesigned the endgame properly.

If you go back to the original D&D game it was built in almost explicit tiers. It is not an accident that in AD&D you both (a) stop getting extra hit dice after level 9 or level 10 and (b) as a class feature get a castle a small army and some land, a thieves guild, a wizard's tower, a cathedral and congregation, or whatever else your class says. And the XP needed to level up after this point becomes absurd and quite intentionally so.

The tiers are as follows:

1. Levels 1-4 or so: We need to band together
2. Levels 4-10 or so: Adventurers on the prowl
3. Level 10+ or so: By this axe I rule

Levels 1-4: We need to band together

Low level oD&D and early 1e was a game of hireling management in which your most important statistic was Charisma - and how many other poor schmucks you could bring into the dungeon with you on your looting expedition. (Looting? At 1XP for 1GP you'd gain three times as much XP for treasure as for monster killing - so smart play was to avoid the monsters and grab the money). War Dogs were stronger than first level fighters. And the name of the game was going in mob-handed with a couple of dozen of you (including NPCs); yes the wizard probably died to a single hit - but with half a dozen people standing in front of them things had gone badly wrong by that point. And yes the wizard only had one spell to start with - but this wasn't such a problem when they spent most of their time directing their NPCs.

Oh, and your character power was your loot. Fighters got swords - and as a wizard your entire spellbook save one single spell was what you had looted in previous adventures.

Levels 4-10: Adventurers on the prowl

What we consider the core D&D gameplay with the small group of adventurers only really happened between levels 5 and 9 in the game designed by Dave Arneson and developed by E. Gary Gygax. At this point most hirelings simply amounted to chaff so there wasn't much point bringing them along. (This made 5th level actually pretty dangerous for the wizard who of course had to get all their spells as treasure the DM had given them).

Levels 10+: By this Axe I Rule

It's important to remember that the highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 13. At level 10 the PCs as a class feature all gain holdings. They become major political movers and shakers - and level progression falls off a cliff so adventuring isn't really worth it. Occasionally they come out of retirement to take on something like the Queen of the Demonweb Pits. But only occasionally. You also won't see much higher than 6th level spells (remember that as I said Sir Robilar was the highest level PC in Greyhawk - a 13th level Fighter).

Or in short you have a level soft-cap in AD&D at around 10th level. Hitting 10th level in AD&D is fairly close to hitting the level cap in World of Warcraft - the game changes at that point from in WoW's case levelling to endgame raiding and in AD&D's case from levelling to politics.

And with the game capping out at about level 13 the higher level spells are there to give the BBEG something to make them really scary. BECMI on the other hand also has tiers - Basic being the same, Expert going up to level 14 as adventurers, Companion being By This Axe, and Master is a mess of optional rules and things that didn't fit earlier (think Unearthed Arcana) and Questing for Immortality - or one of the attempts to expand tier 2 play into tier 3 for people who didn't want to play realm management.

However. In 1985 DL1 was for many reasons extremely popular and influential and reflected and massively increased trends. It tried to run the Adventurers On The Prowl playstyle from level 1 onwards and did it via things like the Obscure Death Rule because it didn't want two dozen NPCs in the Fellowship of the Lance. 2e took this going forward so 2e low level play is a meatgrinder and the rules advise you to fudge. (If you think 4e builds up the encounter, look at the 2e DMG sometime). 2e kept the 1e 10th level soft-cap with followers being a class feature - but deprecated them. 2e works at above 10th level if you follow Gygax and Arneson's rules rather than Zeb Cook's advice.

3.0 decided to entirely remove the soft-cap and say the game ran from levels 1-20. Instead of buildings and resources being endgame play they became a feat (leadership). This makes as much sense as saying "World of Warcraft now goes to level 150. And we're going to keep all the raid dungeons as they are." Of course the game falls apart there. 3.5 and Pathfinder didn't change this.

4e made a nod to reintroducing tiers - but the tiers are nowhere near as compelling as Gygax's tiers. The 4e tiers amount to "Holywood Action Heroes", "Mythological Legends", and "We're going to call this an epic destiny and give very vague pointers that way"

And I have no idea what 5e thinks it's doing with its not-a-level-cap.

I can understand your take, but I do not agree with it. Over 30 years of playing D&D I've seen many different game styles at many different levels. There are many more dynamics than simply the level of the party that determine the how the game will go.

Also, the "soft cap" idea is not accurate. It may be what you've experienced, but it's not at all implied by the rules. For instance, the M-U spell chart keeps adding spells up until 29th level (27th for Illusionists). The only "soft cap" is one determined by you and your play group. The group decides when they want to change things up, and that may never happen. One group I played in through 3 campaigns and routinely had characters in the 10 - 20 level range (and we never used retainers or hirelings). The group I gamed with in the Aarmy was already level 12+ when I joined and we gamed up to 20+.

All I'm saying is there is no standard, no understood "soft cap", and no rule that defines "you play this way between levels 1-4, another way 4-10, and then retire" or anything like that.

[Yora]

It's not really a cap but the very first versions of the rules were indeed designed with 10 levels of adventuring in mind. I believe I've frequently seen mention of the great heroes of the original Grayhawk campaign mostly staying at home and a while back I saw an article that claimed that spells of 6th level and higher tend to be so much more powerful because they were thrown in without much thought because it was not expected that they would actually get any real use by player characters.

[thirdkingdom]

It's not really a cap but the very first versions of the rules were indeed designed with 10 levels of adventuring in mind. I believe I've frequently seen mention of the great heroes of the original Grayhawk campaign mostly staying at home and a while back I saw an article that claimed that spells of 6th level and higher tend to be so much more powerful because they were thrown in without much thought because it was not expected that they would actually get any real use by player characters.

The more I play D&D the more I believe that B/X really hit the sweet spot with their level range of 1-14.

[neonchameleon]

I can understand your take, but I do not agree with it. Over 30 years of playing D&D I've seen many different game styles at many different levels. There are many more dynamics than simply the level of the party that determine the how the game will go.

Also, the "soft cap" idea is not accurate. It may be what you've experienced, but it's not at all implied by the rules.

The idea that everyone plays D&D as Arneson & Gygax intended is ridiculous. I'm talking about the way the initial versions of the game were designed when one of the great things about D&D is just how hackable it is. But if you look at the XP and hit point tables something clearly changes at around level 10 That's what I mean by a soft-cap; not that you can't break it but that you get diminishing returns and that things change.

[Psikerlord]

Going right back to the start of the thread the answer as to why almost all editions of D&D fall apart past 10th level is because (with the exception of 4e which was redesigned from the ground up) D&D as designed by Arneson and developed by Gygax had a 10th level soft-cap (a look at the AD&D rules should make this pretty obvious). D&D falls apart after this point because no one has redesigned the endgame properly.

If you go back to the original D&D game it was built in almost explicit tiers. It is not an accident that in AD&D you both (a) stop getting extra hit dice after level 9 or level 10 and (b) as a class feature get a castle a small army and some land, a thieves guild, a wizard's tower, a cathedral and congregation, or whatever else your class says. And the XP needed to level up after this point becomes absurd and quite intentionally so.

The tiers are as follows:

1. Levels 1-4 or so: We need to band together
2. Levels 4-10 or so: Adventurers on the prowl
3. Level 10+ or so: By this axe I rule

Levels 1-4: We need to band together

Low level oD&D and early 1e was a game of hireling management in which your most important statistic was Charisma - and how many other poor schmucks you could bring into the dungeon with you on your looting expedition. (Looting? At 1XP for 1GP you'd gain three times as much XP for treasure as for monster killing - so smart play was to avoid the monsters and grab the money). War Dogs were stronger than first level fighters. And the name of the game was going in mob-handed with a couple of dozen of you (including NPCs); yes the wizard probably died to a single hit - but with half a dozen people standing in front of them things had gone badly wrong by that point. And yes the wizard only had one spell to start with - but this wasn't such a problem when they spent most of their time directing their NPCs.

Oh, and your character power was your loot. Fighters got swords - and as a wizard your entire spellbook save one single spell was what you had looted in previous adventures.

Levels 4-10: Adventurers on the prowl

What we consider the core D&D gameplay with the small group of adventurers only really happened between levels 5 and 9 in the game designed by Dave Arneson and developed by E. Gary Gygax. At this point most hirelings simply amounted to chaff so there wasn't much point bringing them along. (This made 5th level actually pretty dangerous for the wizard who of course had to get all their spells as treasure the DM had given them).

Levels 10+: By this Axe I Rule

It's important to remember that the highest level PC in Greyhawk was Sir Robilar at level 13. At level 10 the PCs as a class feature all gain holdings. They become major political movers and shakers - and level progression falls off a cliff so adventuring isn't really worth it. Occasionally they come out of retirement to take on something like the Queen of the Demonweb Pits. But only occasionally. You also won't see much higher than 6th level spells (remember that as I said Sir Robilar was the highest level PC in Greyhawk - a 13th level Fighter).

Or in short you have a level soft-cap in AD&D at around 10th level. Hitting 10th level in AD&D is fairly close to hitting the level cap in World of Warcraft - the game changes at that point from in WoW's case levelling to endgame raiding and in AD&D's case from levelling to politics.

And with the game capping out at about level 13 the higher level spells are there to give the BBEG something to make them really scary. BECMI on the other hand also has tiers - Basic being the same, Expert going up to level 14 as adventurers, Companion being By This Axe, and Master is a mess of optional rules and things that didn't fit earlier (think Unearthed Arcana) and Questing for Immortality - or one of the attempts to expand tier 2 play into tier 3 for people who didn't want to play realm management.

However. In 1985 DL1 was for many reasons extremely popular and influential and reflected and massively increased trends. It tried to run the Adventurers On The Prowl playstyle from level 1 onwards and did it via things like the Obscure Death Rule because it didn't want two dozen NPCs in the Fellowship of the Lance. 2e took this going forward so 2e low level play is a meatgrinder and the rules advise you to fudge. (If you think 4e builds up the encounter, look at the 2e DMG sometime). 2e kept the 1e 10th level soft-cap with followers being a class feature - but deprecated them. 2e works at above 10th level if you follow Gygax and Arneson's rules rather than Zeb Cook's advice.

3.0 decided to entirely remove the soft-cap and say the game ran from levels 1-20. Instead of buildings and resources being endgame play they became a feat (leadership). This makes as much sense as saying "World of Warcraft now goes to level 150. And we're going to keep all the raid dungeons as they are." Of course the game falls apart there. 3.5 and Pathfinder didn't change this.

4e made a nod to reintroducing tiers - but the tiers are nowhere near as compelling as Gygax's tiers. The 4e tiers amount to "Holywood Action Heroes", "Mythological Legends", and "We're going to call this an epic destiny and give very vague pointers that way"

And I have no idea what 5e thinks it's doing with its not-a-level-cap.

I completely agree and firmly believe the "Sweet spot" is up to about 11th level myself. Part of the reason why I capped Low Fantasy Gaming rpg at 12th.

[The BlindCleric]

Perhaps others have said this, but mid level gaming is different than low level gaming and high level gaming is remarkably different than the first 2. If things tend to spiral out of control as the average level of the party increases, it is not the fault of the game, but the fault of the DM, and to a lesser extent, the players. Beginning level players generally have survival of the adventure as their primary goal. If this goal is accomplished, everyone is happy. Mid level players, having solidified their characters ability to survive, shift their focus to the accumulation of power. it is simply human nature. The DM must, on the one hand modify his play to provide more challenging and complex scenarios for his players, while on the other hand provide commensurate rewards for successful play. Most DMs do a good job of this, as A), the monster manuals provide a wide range of challenging mid level encounters for melee combat, B), the characters, while more powerful, are still dependent on the other members of the party for survival and C), The game mechanics, while becoming more complex. remain largely the same. But at some point, usually between 10th and 12th level, the party dynamic begins to change.

It is the responsibility of the DM to recognize and respond to this. Players, always looking to accumulate power, are hoping for ever greater rewards. They become less and less dependent on the party for their survival and success. They increasingly compete with one another for greater participation of their character in all aspects of the adventure, including leadership, indispensability and of course combat. Many DMs simply use the same model they have always used; ratcheting up the creature encounters and doling out more treasure and more powerful magic. This is a recipe for disaster. So what's a DM to do?

Here are a few things that I have found helpful:

1) Reduce the size of the party. As the power and ambition of a character grows, He is less likely to share the spotlight with 6-8 other characters. it is inevitable that he and other members of the party will find themselves at odds with one another, becoming more concerned with inter-party confrontations than the adventure at hand. Some DMs simply punish the party with more frequent and deadly encounters, bias their dice against the party and/or perhaps killing off one or two of the worst offenders. You can imagine where this leads.
Instead, scale back the size of the party. This allows the higher level characters to become more autonomous and take on greater responsibility. it will be more likely that with fewer personalities in the party (3-5), that the various characters will bond with each other, rather than constantly compete for the main stage.

2) Know your players characters. Do not allow your players to run whoever they want. Examine each character closely. Ask lots of questions. Too much magic? Perhaps they need to leave some of it at home. Find out their (both player and character) motivations. Is the character looking to amass a fortune? Is the player highly focused on XPs and gaining levels? Is a character looking to accumulate enough magic to open his own magic mart? will any of the characters powers or abilities become a distraction in the game? Once you know some of these things, you be better able to judge which characters will be best suited for the adventure at hand.

3) Balance the skill sets. It seems intuitive, but many DMs acquiesce to their players demands to play this or that character, regardless of who else is running what. If necessary, determine in advance what skills you want in a party for a particular adventure and allow the players to fill in the blanks. This creates a more cooperative atmosphere at the start and can only improve gameplay. Also, If your adventure is combat heavy, make sure you have a party biased for fighting. Likewise, if the encounters are more cerebral, (read: heavy on magic), or rely heavily on stealth and deception, plan the party accordingly. And one last point: do not run 2 different characters of the same class and level in a small party. They will often compete for the same things, get in each others way and generally create hostility in the party.

4) know your creatures. At all levels, DMs tend to play creatures in 2 dimensions; that is, they jump out and start swinging and don't stop or change tactics until either they or the party is dead. Playing your creatures more like characters will make them more challenging and interesting to both the DM and his players. This becomes ever more crucial as the creatures (and the party) become increasingly more powerful. For example, a pair of Mind Flayers can devastate a mid to high level party If the DM plays them for what they are: powerful predators that can move in and out of the prime material plane at will and may stalk a party for days, picking off the weak and unaware. Yet often A DM will have a mind flayer jump out in front of the party, launch a tentacle attack on the nearest character, and allow it to suffer attacks from the rest of the party until the Mind Flayer either extracts the brain of his victim or is killed. This type of play generally sets up the expectation among the characters that they are only one or two steps away from being invincible. But not only that, The DM, when he plays his creatures only as foils for the party, is setting himself up for failure. Because at some point, he will need an army of Mind Flayers to meet the challenge. And at that point, it ceases to be a role playing game and becomes a dice game.

5) Run 1 and 2 character adventures. As characters begin to push past the 15th level, the gameplay needs to change significantly. If a players character has come by all of his experience honorably, he will have much invested in that character, and yearns to expand his wealth and influence. A DM ignores this at his peril. He needs to be willing to craft scenarios, often in consultation with the player, that will enable the character to perhaps acquire land, build a stonghold of some sort, hire mercenaries and mount an assault against a rival etc... The possibilities are practically endless. The point is, A DM must be prepared to meet the needs and desires of his players characters at all levels. which means that at the uppermost levels, party adventuring should be rare or non-existent. If properly done, the small, "mini" adventures can be some of the most memorable and exciting sessions you and your player/players will have.

As DMs, we've all, at some point, made every mistake in the book. As long we can identify a mistake when we make it, we can learn from it and become better. With some dedication and cooperation and good management, we can hopefully avoid, or at least minimize the problems that the OP and others have brought up.

[Zombimode]

Today I'm starting a new 3.5 campaign. 4 Players. Two of the characters are from the last campaign that ended last week (where I was a Player), the other Players have created new characters.
The Party starts at Level 11. Composition:
- Elf (Bow-)Ranger 11
- Human Spirit Shaman 11
- Human Wizard 5 / Mage of the Arcane Order 6
- Elan Monk 1 / Ardent 10 (with Tashalatora Monk)

This will be my first high(er) Level 3.5 campaign I've participated in any serious Fashion.

Let's see how this "falling apart" will turn out.

I will Keep you posted!

[The BlindCleric]

hey Zombie...looking forward to hearing how it goes!

[Cluedrew]

If things tend to spiral out of control as the average level of the party increases, it is not the fault of the game, but the fault of the DM, and to a lesser extent, the players.

I have heard this several times and, I mean I understand the arguments for it (the actual arguments for it, not the "the game is perfect" or "it takes a quality GM to run it" stuff) and I still think it doesn't hold.

Having the mode of gameplay change part way through is almost always bad game design. It can work, often in narrative games which, as a role-playing game, D&D is at least in part. But even there it is questionable because people didn't get it. And sure mistakes will be made and misunderstandings will happen, but I think a lot or even most people didn't get it. And that shows the game didn't present itself properly.

So then the game falls apart not because it changes, but because it did not properly inform and equip the players and the GM for that change. And that isn't the player's fault, how could it be as they don't even know to try.

[Knaight]

Having the mode of gameplay change part way through is almost always bad game design. It can work, often in narrative games which, as a role-playing game, D&D is at least in part. But even there it is questionable because people didn't get it. And sure mistakes will be made and misunderstandings will happen, but I think a lot or even most people didn't get it. And that shows the game didn't present itself properly.

The presentation bit is key - that there are three distinct game phases in Adventurer, Conquerer, King is hardly an issue. The title pretty much spells it out, it supports all three well, etc. Early D&D spelled it out a bit more, but it never had ACKS level support and later editions have the mode change obscured.

[Yora]

One interpretation I've seen from older players more than once is that in the early days 10th level characters were effectively retired and mostly make guest appearances in the campaign. Is the clear cut already spelled out in OD&D or is it something that was only later codified in AD&D and the Expert rules?

[Thrudd]

One interpretation I've seen from older players more than once is that in the early days 10th level characters were effectively retired and mostly make guest appearances in the campaign. Is the clear cut already spelled out in OD&D or is it something that was only later codified in AD&D and the Expert rules?

I think it's less of a codified change and more just a practical result of most people's playing experience. What actually happened when you got to that level would surely depend totally on the group, whether they stuck to dungeon delving type adventures with enemies scaling to their level or played with building castles and leading armies or started plane-hopping and trying to become gods. One DM might hand out tons of XP and let the characters get super high level, another might be more conservative and advancing will take forever.

The practical reality is, it is rare for a campaign to go on that long - people simply didn't often get to that level. I think most people who played AD&D will confirm that they rarely if ever reached those upper levels, not because of a choice of play style but because it takes a really long time to get that much XP, and groups don't stick together forever and people get bored and like to try new characters or change DMs or whatever. When you get to those levels, advancement slows to a crawl and you'll probably be at level 9 or 10 for a really long time relative to the amount of time spent at the lower levels, even if you keep playing with the same characters.

The game itself doesn't "fall apart" from some mechanical failing, it doesn't stop working as a game, it's just not common for people to play into those levels when they start from level 1, which I also think was a nearly universal convention until the 3/3.5 days.
If you started an AD&D game at level 10, and designed adventures for a party of 4-6 players with appropriately tough challenges, it would work just fine. It might take a long time to gain levels, but that also depends on how much treasure you put in there.

[MeeposFire]

How long it takes to level in AD&D really depends on what XP rules you are using especially 2e. If you did not use the optional XP rules for classes and especially the treasure gives XP rules (yes that stil exists in 2e) then unless your DM gave out a ton of quest XP (assuming they used that too) then monster XP would take FOREVER to level and I find that is a common thing that you see in many threads about why it takes so long in 2e in particular. It would still take a while but it does make a big difference.

[D+1]

I'll just put this here.

It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.

[Morty]

Yeah, so levels above 10 were originally an afterthought no one expected to become relevant. Except it did eventually become relevant, but the system never had an idea more refined than "retire the character" or "politics, I guess".

[Elderand]

Yeah, so levels above 10 were originally an afterthought no one expected to become relevant. Except it did eventually become relevant, but the system never had an idea more refined than "retire the character" or "politics, I guess".

That is blatantly untrue given that becmi has rather detailed rules for dominion level play and even god level ones.

[Yora]

However, BECMI came out 10 years after D&D became a popular game. By that point a lot of people would have been encountering the situation of not knowing what to do with their high level characters.

The domain rules in Cook Expert are extremely rudimentary and pretty much consist of only half a page of price lists for castle construction.

I've been reading the Companion rules yesterday and while it is a lot more elaborate the domain rules only consist of mechanics for managing a castle, like staff, tax income, and defense. But what it seems to completely fail to talk about is what a player with a domain is supposed to do with it. There is a list of random domain events that are supposed to give the players stuff to do, but they are all just things that have the players repair damage done to their domain. But that would mean that players are passively waiting for something bad to happen, then fix it, and then wait again until something happens that requires their attention. It's maintaining the status quo but lacks a sense of progress.

Now it is certainly possible that players will find some kind of goal that seems worth pursuing with the resources of a domain within the setting that has been established throughout the campaign. Expanding the domain for example or getting into a long term war with a rival domain. But I didn't find any advice on that in the book and it also comes with the problem that it's not really a team game.

You could have three or four high level characters playing a domain game among themselves and at the same time acting as quest givers for lower level characters who then go on special missions to further the goals of the rulers. But that would probably be an organizational nightmare where the GMs have to jump between players and everyone having to wait out the other groups' turns so that time can progress evenly for everyone. And even that wouldn't work in a campaign where all the players have their own domain each.

The only practical approach I see is indeed semi-retirement. Players with ruler characters could occassionally take on the task of secondary GM and control a quest giver NPC, but then actually play a lower level PC who is part of the adventuring party most of the time.

[Telok]

I think we may have to understand that in the old days a group that reached the Cook Expert and Companion domain rules probably would have already been playing a good long while. They already have a set world and an ongoing campaign, so just adding a bit of stronghold management may have seemed appropriate. They already had a game going and just tacked on (and published) a new bit about managing castles and such. Rules about what to do beyond that probably weren't considered because they didn't think anyone needed to be told to keep making up adventures for their game.

I always try to keep in mind that the earliest versions of the rules weren't really attempts to design a full featured game with a complete and unified structure. Cook, Moldavy, et al, were in some ways writing the rules from the games they were playing. They didn't have previous editions mistakes to learn from and the concept of a unified game structure and experience wasn't there yet.

[Zardnaar]

Combination of power curve/coplexity and time IRL as it probably takes 6-12 months to get to level 9 or 10 and older editions advancement also slowed down heaps.

AD&D time IRL
3E power curve
4E complexity and combats grinding to a halt


5E might be an exception due to very fast level progression.

[Zardnaar]

The more I play D&D the more I believe that B/X really hit the sweet spot with their level range of 1-14.

B/X PCs are also less powerful than say AD&D ones so level 14 in B/X is simialr to level 11 or so in AD&D. Compare 1st level AD&D cleric to a 1st level Basic Cleric. AD&D cleric might have 3 level 1 spells vs 0.

B/X is perhaps the best D&D or close to it IMHO even though I do not play it much anymore. Its better designed than AD&D, 3.0, 3.5 and perhaps 4E (5E maybe beats it).

[Zardnaar]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.

I went back to it and its not true at all. Nostalgia is not such a factor when you are playing the game recently. I don't have an OSR group so tend to play with 3E or Pathfinder players (recently 5E players).

The main factors for playing OSR gaming.

1. Its less broken than 3E.
2. Its not 4E
3. B/X is decent in its own right IMHO (except maybe level 1 &2)
4. Its different than 5E (xp for gold rewards exploration, simpler, less cluttered, grittier).
5. Feel like D&D a lot.
6. Great adventure support.
7. Parts of it are WTF (in a good way). 1E Druids, expedition to the barrier peaks, Tomb of Horrors (players are like eeep).

Not claiming OSR gaming is perfect but it has some advantages over modern D&D (and vice versa).

[2D8HP]

I....Not claiming OSR gaming is perfect but it has some advantages over modern D&D (and vice versa).

The only RPG's I've played this decade have been TSR '81 B/X D&D, and WotC 5e D&D.

Neither has been as fun for me as 1977 "Basic", oD&D, and the AD&D that I played before I entered high school, but since that's true of most everything, I think fun was just more fun at 12 than at 48! Besides those long ago games are dim memories now, and my favorite DM from those years recently died so they'll never be a way to re-play those games.

I've never played "2e" (I hated 1985's Unearthed Arcana and didn't buy new rules after that), "3e", "3.5", or "4e". 2e looks to be mostly like the other TSR D&D I've played, so I think I would like it especially if I can get a PC past 1st level. 3e looked like it would be fun for me at lower levels but than feel too "OP", at higher levels, and I haven't really looked much at 3.5 and 4e.

OK, During my prime D&D playing years (1978 to 1982), I never really played long past third level. By the time the "party" got to that level one or more of the PC's would have died, and for whatever reason it just didn't occur to us to have new PC's start at higher levels.

Apparently starting at higher levels is now very much a "thing".

Since all the B/X games this decade never last long, I mostly play what WotC calls 5e. It's been really fun... at low levels.

The highest level I've played 5e at was 11 which was the start!

I hated it.

Just too many super-powers.

If I wanted that I'd play Champions dagnabbit!

And what's all this PC's don't start as average people junk!

How can you "go from zero to hero" if you don't start as a zero?!

From page 19 of 1974's Dungeons & Dragons Book 1 "Men & Magic" - "Normal men equal 1st-level fighters"


(They were slightly better than commoners, not "exceptional" dagnabbit!)

But...

Everyone else seemed to really like starting at high level, and what feels OP to me seemed just right to the other players. And from what I read at this Forum, Pathfinder fans find 5e under-powered!

There's also a difference in how fast you level up. In the TSR D&D I've played it took a lot of table time to level up, but in 5e it's... BAM! Just a couple of sessions and I get handed a level, which is fun... at first. The other players even tell the DM's "Shouldn't we have gotten another level by now?" (it seems to me we just did!).

I think that those who like more human scale PC's (like me) just don't enjoy the higher levels, and those who like the higher levels, don't want to start at first level (judging by what's written in this Forum the majority want to play "Fantasyland superheroes"). And when I remember how by the early 1990's it seemed that everyone else who still wanted to play RPG's quit D&D and switched to Champions, Cyberpunk, and Vampire.
Without the switch to 3e, maybe D&D would just not be popular.

I've read some posts to the effect that "I hated 2e D&D because it was false advertising, because you don't really play a hero, your too weak", or something along those lines.

To each their own.

One interpretation I've seen from older players more than once is that in the early days 10th level characters were effectively retired and mostly make guest appearances in the campaign. Is the clear cut already spelled out in OD&D or is it something that was only later codified in AD&D and the Expert rules?

@Yora,

I'd really like it if you had some oD&D rules on hand already, do I need to ship them to you?

OK,

1974 - Dungeons & Dragons Book 1: Men & Magic,
(Page 6)
"Fighting-Men:...
...Top-level fighters (Lords and above) who build castles are considered "Barons", and as such they invest in their holdings in order to increase their income (see the INVESTMENTS section of Book III). Base income for a Baron is a tax rate of 10 Gold Pieces/inhabitant of the barony/game year"

"Magic-Users: Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long hard road to the top, and to begin with they are very weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."...

(Page 7)
"Clerics:...
....When reach the top level (Patriarch) they may opt to build their own stronghold, and when doing so receive help from "above." Thus, if they spend 100,000 Gold Pieces in castle construction, they may build a fortress of double that cost. Finally, "faithful" men will come to such a castle, being fanatically loyal, and they will serve at no cost. There will be from 10-60 heavy cavalry....

....Clerics with castles of their own will have control of a territory similar to the "Barony" of fighters, and they will receive "tithes" equal to 20 Gold Pieces/Inhabitant/year."


1974 - Dungeons & Dragons Book III: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures,
(Page 20)
CONSTRUCTION OF CASTLES AND STRONGHOLDS:
At any time a player/character wishes he may select a portion of land (or a city lot) upon which to build his castle, tower or whatever...
.....Surprises, intakings, sieges, and so on can take place

(Page 24)
BARONIES:
Another advantage accruing to those who build their strongholds...
...This populace will bring in annual tax revenue equal to..."

You get the gist.

It hints that it becomes Chainmail combined with Monopoly.

Pendragon tried to do it again with the Nobles Book.

I don't know anyone who actually played the game that way.

[Morty]

Not claiming OSR gaming is perfect but it has some advantages over modern D&D (and vice versa).

I'm not sure why you'd assume that because I consider old D&D to be bad, it means I like modern D&D. A lot of the franchise's problems persist between editions. One of them happens to be that the scaling falls apart at higher levels - 4e avoids it, but it has its own problems on high levels.

If I absolutely had to play a D&D game, it'd be 4e, or 5e. 4e is a bit of a mess, but it's interesting in its own way. 5e is overpoweringly mediocre, but inoffensive enough.

[Knaight]

I'm not sure why you'd assume that because I consider old D&D to be bad, it means I like modern D&D. A lot of the franchise's problems persist between editions. One of them happens to be that the scaling falls apart at higher levels - 4e avoids it, but it has its own problems on high levels.

I know, right?

[Jay R]

I don't know anyone who actually played the game that way.

This is the actual answer to the question in the thread title.

D&D (the original) works fine after 10th level -- if you play it like it's designed. But we never did. We weren't miniatures players who were trying to get our characters high enough level to lead armies. We wanted to go on small adventures. And the power at high levels wasn't built that way.

It's like playing Fight Club, working your way up from hands to brass knuckles to knives to maces to swords to ...

Once you each have an atomic bomb, the game of fighting each other in an arena falls apart.

[CharonsHelper]

Everyone else seemed to really like starting at high level, and what feels OP to me seemed just right to the other players. And from what I read at this Forum, Pathfinder fans find 5e under-powered!

I don't think that has to do with the number of powers you get in 5e (which seems to be your issue) but rather to do with the roll of the d20 having far more to do with any given success than the character's skill.

It's an inherent problem (or feature depending upon your point of view) of playing a system which intentionally keeps modifiers low while rolling a single die - making the RNG chance equal throughout the scale. This is as opposed to systems such as Pathfinder where the modifiers are large, or as opposed to other systems where you roll dice which make the RNG element more of a bell curve (2d10/3d6/dice pool etc.).