D&D 5E (2024) Mike Mearls explains why your boss monsters die too easily

[tetrasodium]

I don't really understand this statement.

The group almost certainly cares about accomplishing whatever objective they set out on. Let's say that objective is to bring in a certain fugitive. They learn the guy is at a certain location. If they choose to rest for 8 hours (to be at optimal strength) before going to get the guy, they won't care that he's gone by the time they get there? And is that considered railroad levels of fiat?

Or if the group is moving through known hostile territory. It should be a real issue/discussion whether they hurry through in a weakened condition or plunk down to rest and possibly encounter hostiles (let's ignore tiny hut, as that's a different issue/discussion).

8 hours is not some trivial, inconsequential amount of time. Though if it's not enough there are options (longer rest requirements, only having a long rest in specific "safe" areas) which work for many DM (and yes 5.24 cut those options from the DMG, to the dislike of quite a few).

You gave a consequence of the rest but not why that consequence matters. Look at the next order effects of saying who caresand letting him die.

The quest fails? And? This one only matters if the players believe the gm will Walk away.

Other NPCs give the party gets cold shoulder from npcs? Again so what? They can sleep in a ditch and be perfectly safe recovering just fine. Magic item churn was stripped away and that's power was baked into the baseline class with everything tuned to starting gear level 1-20.

More monsters join the fight? Again... And? Are these the monsters
mearls noted PC's exceeding expectations by 5-6x?

Additional monsters are overtuned by 5-6x? Don't give exp? Etc? Now you Are back to the gm jumping in the line of fire wielding pure fiat to soak up the heated player ire for the failure of that ruleset to matter when it comes to providing gm & players with credible incentives that make taking another rest into something other than the most optimal choice actual incentives


Without ithe gm invoking fiat or players simply choosing to care, tell us what you think makes that sacrifice actually matter enough to make another rest not be the most optimal choice and it's almost certain that it really won't matter as much as implied

 

[Mort]

You gave a consequence of the rest but not why that consequence matters. Look at the next order effects of saying who caresand letting him die.

The quest fails? And? This one only matters if the players believe the gm will Walk away.

Other NPCs give the party gets cold shoulder from npcs? Again so what? They can sleep in a ditch and be perfectly safe recovering just fine. Magic item churn was stripped away and that's power was baked into the baseline class with everything tuned to starting gear level 1-20.

More monsters join the fight? Again... And? Are these the monsters
mearls noted PC's exceeding expectations by 5-6x?

Additional monsters are overtuned by 5-6x? Don't give exp? Etc? Now you Are back to the gm jumping in the line of fire wielding pure fiat to soak up the heated player ire for the failure of that ruleset to matter when it comes to providing gm & players with credible incentives that make taking another rest into something other than the most optimal choice actual incentives


Without ithe gm invoking fiat or players simply choosing to care, tell us what you think makes that sacrifice actually matter enough to make another rest not be the most optimal choice and it's almost certain that it really won't matter as much as implied

I'm sorry, but who the heck are you playing with? My players absolutely care if their objectives fail - that's one big reason they are playing the game. They also understand consequences resulting from their actions.

I've never DM'd for or played in a group that just simply "didn't care." Why are they playing then?

And if we are talking about conventions, one shots (at stores etc.) Then those adventures can be tuned however the DM likes - it's a one shot. But even in these situations I've never played or DM'd in a game where the players simply did not care (and I've been to quite a few cons).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don't really understand this statement.

The group almost certainly cares about accomplishing whatever objective they set out on. Let's say that objective is to bring in a certain fugitive. They learn the guy is at a certain location. If they choose to rest for 8 hours (to be at optimal strength) before going to get the guy, they won't care that he's gone by the time they get there? And is that considered railroad levels of fiat?

Or if the group is moving through known hostile territory. It should be a real issue/discussion whether they hurry through in a weakened condition or plunk down to rest and possibly encounter hostiles (let's ignore tiny hut, as that's a different issue/discussion).

8 hours is not some trivial, inconsequential amount of time. Though if it's not enough there are options (longer rest requirements, only having a long rest in specific "safe" areas) which work for many DMs (and yes 5.24 cut those options from the DMG, to the dislike of quite a few).

Exactly this. The game is about making meaningful choices. Time pressure helps to achieve that goal.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm sorry, but who the heck are you playing with? My players absolutely care if their objectives fail - that's one big reason they are playing the game. They also understand consequences resulting from their actions.

I've never DM'd for or played in a group that just simply "didn't care." Why are they playing then?

And if we are talking about conventions, one shots (at stores etc.) Then those adventures can be tuned however the DM likes - it's a one shot. But even in these situations I've never played or DM'd in a game where the players simply did not care (and I've been to quite a few cons).

No. If you can't explain why it matters enough to make pushing onto keep charging through attrition the optimal choice instead of taking the rest in any way other than condemning the players taking the optimal choice then you have confirmed that the system fails so hard to provide the GM with tools to make it matter that even it's defenders can't defend it.

It doesn't matter who the players are. The system design failure is what matters.

 

[Mort]

No. If you can't explain why it matters enough to make pushing onto keep charging through attrition the optimal choice instead of taking the rest in any way other than condemning the players taking the optimal choice then you have confirmed that the system fails so hard to provide the GM with tools to make it matter that even it's defenders can't defend it.

It doesn't matter who the players are. The system design failure is what matters.

You've completely lost me. I just don't understand.

The players are presented with the choice of failure of their objective if they choose to fully rest. If the objective is important to them, they'll power forward, if not they'll rest. So the point is to make sure they actually care about the objective, and for players I've gamed with - that's not difficult. Players, in my experience, don't like missing out on finishing quests or acquiring stuff, or being the first to do something. I have yet to meet a player who's mindset is "screw the adventure, I need my sleep!"

 

[tetrasodium]

You've completely lost me. I just don't understand.

The players are presented with the choice of failure of their objective if they choose to fully rest. If the objective is important to them, they'll power forward, if not they'll rest. So the point is to make sure they actually care about the objective, and for players I've gamed with - that's not difficult. Players, in my experience, don't like missing out on finishing quests or acquiring stuff, or being the first to do something. I have yet to meet a player who's mindset is "screw the adventure, I need my sleep!"

The question is what part of"why it matters" is being carried by the system not "if". All of your answers seen to boil down to some variation of "because the players chose to care" or "because the players fear fiat" with a side of outrage that the system is expected to carry weight for the gm in regards to ensuring players meet the system's encounter expectations instead of frequent resting

 

[dave2008]

I would argue that it's WotC's highest priority, however, far and away, so it's certainly relevant.

The problem with that idea is WotC doesn't have a highest priority. A company is not a conscious living thing. There are many people that make up the company and I am sure that many of the people within WotC have different priorities. As such, WotC has many priorities and the highest of them is going to vary from employee to employee. I think it is simply too reductive to paint "WotC" as something with a single mind, intent, goal, and priority.

 

[Yaarel]

It is possible to count encounters.

From levels 5 to 10, there are about fifteen standard combat encounters until the next level up. In other words, mathematically, there is one long rest per level, plus a long rest when starting the level. All other rests are short rests.

If DMs want better gaming balance, count the number of encounters. Each player gets one "deep rest" per level, at a time of their choosing.

This will preserve parity between Fighters and fullcasters.

The fifteen encounters can happen in a single day in a dungeon crawl, or stretch out across weeks while on a ship voyage. The math stays constant.

 

[Mort]

The question is what part of"why" is being carried by the system not "if". All of your answers seen to boil down to some variation of "because the players chose to care" or "because the players fear fiat" with a side of outrage that the system is expected to carry weight for the gm in regards to ensuring players meet the system's encounter expectations instead of frequent resting

Of course the players have to "choose to care," Player engagement is absolutely key in any gaming experience. System design can certainly help in rewarding players engagement. But you seem to be saying it can force it? That the system can force the players into better system engagement and therefore force a "better" experience?

Edit: Or are you saying that the system should be designed around the fact that players "don't care" and should be designed around their lack of engagement with the fiction?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It is possible to count encounters.

From levels 5 to 10, there are about fifteen standard combat encounters until the next level up. In other words, mathematically, there is one long rest per level, plus a long rest when starting the level. All other rests are short rests.

If DMs want better gaming balance, count the number of encounters. Each player gets one "deep rest" per level, at a time of their choosing.

This will preserve parity between Fighters and fullcasters.

The fifteen encounters can happen in a single day in a dungeon crawl, or stretch out across weeks while on a ship voyage. The math stays constant.

So you kinda have a system of "sublevels". At Level 1.5, you recover all your hit points, spells and abilities. At Level 2, you recover all your hit points, spells, and abilities, and gain a new level.

Of course, it also means you can never nova. Most combats must be in a narrow range or players will be out of resources before they reach level x.5. That isn't ideal, either. Unless maybe you classify encounters explicitely as "easy, moderate or hard", so players know the can blow more resources. Kinda like Torg did - you have normal scenes and dramatic scenes, in dramatic scenes, the villains got more favorable conditions from the drama deck.