It’s more about groups falling apart/keeping momentum than a lack of desire to play high level games. And for me, starting your characters at high level already is fine for a one shot but not great for a campaign.As with real life – shared experiences enrich relationships. Which goes for PCs and NPCs. Playing your characters just won't feel the same if you start off high level.

— Feysaan ✡ (@UncannyDoge) December 29, 2019

The data came as a shock to me, since my experience since 3e has been 1-20+ as a standard expectation.

I was incredibly lucky to have the groups I did that could make that work, and I very much see how most groups don't manage it.

— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) December 30, 2019

I had similar experiences in 3.x

I was fortunate to play in 2 long campaigns that went to level 18-20. Admittedly none of the games I’ve DMed have ever gone that long.

I have a 2e game where I should hit level 17 this coming year if I survive, but that’s been going 26 years Oh lordy, 2e was another animal entirely. We had a campaign that ran for about 4.5 years, 2 of those years were minimum 1/week sessions, usually more, some all-day-Saturdays.

Our highest level PC had just hit level 15 when we stopped for good.

— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) December 30, 2019

Impressive! Our first few years were like that, marathon sessions at least once a week. We took a loooong break in there for ours, probably 7-8 years. We only play once or twice a year now but it’s typically minimum of 10-12 hours over a weekend at a time. Great to get together.That sounds like an amazing time.

— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) December 30, 2019

The "adventure path" model from Dungeon Magazine helped immensely with making those campaigns successful for us.

— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) December 30, 2019

I think it would be a pretty terrifying world where paladins walked up and killed any random evil person. Imagine witnessing that as a peasant only to hear, “oh he was evil, trust me.”Exactly. And soon, it would be a world in which everyone slew paladins on sight. In self-defense.
And being as they're in the game and in the Realms, it follows that paladins don't behave like that in the Realms.#Realmslore

— Ed Greenwood (@TheEdVerse) December 29, 2019

@TheEdVerse Sorry to bother you, but I'd really like to make a buddhist-like monk character (the Believers of the Source creed fits him perfectly) for my next FR game but I don't want to have him go to the Wall of the Faithless in case he'd die. How could I solve this conundrum?

— Valentino Conti (@ValetheHowl) December 29, 2019

1)
It’s no conundrum. Some D&D players seem to find it very difficult to move from monotheistic thinking (there is only one true God) to pantheistic (as all sentients in the Realms believe = there are many gods, all are real, and all should be venerated/respected). 2)
So assuming your monk grew up in the Realms, and thinks/believes like anyone native to Toril, that monk would believe in ALL of the gods, and would make offerings/reverence to them all, even if only to ward away displeasure. For example, prayers to Umberlee if…#Realmslore

— Ed Greenwood (@TheEdVerse) December 30, 2019

3)
…going on an ocean voyage, prayers to Shaundakul if embarking on a journey into unfamiliar wilderlands (or joining a caravan or going prospecting), and so on. These small acts mean the monk is NOT “Faithless” and will not go to the Wall. Faithless does NOT.. 4)
…mean "not sufficiently attentive to just one deity and not being loyal to that God above all others." ALL Believers of the Source believe that gods exist and that becoming one is a desirable goal, so they cannot, by definition, be Faithless.#Realmslore

— Ed Greenwood (@TheEdVerse) December 30, 2019