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

[tetrasodium]

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?

I named specific elements that previously aided the gm in giving all players at the table a reason for the players to care. You literally quoted those reasons while ignoring the system design problem being discussed in the quoted post to express outrage towards the players.

At this point the extreme system design failure setting the gm up for failure when excessive rests are expected is obvious

 

[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.

It matters because the players want to complete the quest. If they don't, why exactly are they playing?

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.

This, again, assumes complete disengagement for the game and the setting. If this is the case, why are the players even playing?

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

How are setting incentives not "credible incentives?" You are discounting everything other than mechanical incentives, and I do not think that's correct.

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

But the players NEED to choose to care. If they don't very little else matters and the chance of any kind of fun experience is minimal. And again, logical consequences of the PCs actions are not fiat -it's why there is a DM in the first place.

Look saying the balance on encounter design is off is one thing, and it can be shown and be addressed. One of the big problems with 5e was that the encounter guidelines were not widely known and were out of whack with how people actually played - that's an issue. But saying only mechanical incentives will work in fixing the issue? I don't think that's solely the way to go at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The ones who control the money make the decisions, and they care about profit most. They can listen to others with different priorities, but are under no obligation to do what they say.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It matters because the players want to complete the quest. If they don't, why exactly are they playing?


This, again, assumes complete disengagement for the game and the setting. If this is the case, why are the players even playing?


How are setting incentives not "credible incentives?" You are discounting everything other than mechanical incentives, and I do not think that's correct.


But the players NEED to choose to care. If they don't very little else matters and the chance of any kind of fun experience is minimal. And again, logical consequences of the PCs actions are not fiat -it's why there is a DM in the first place.

Look saying the balance on encounter design is off is one thing, and it can be shown and be addressed. One of the big problems with 5e was that the encounter guidelines were not widely known and were out of whack with how people actually played - that's an issue. But saying only mechanical incentives will work in fixing the issue? I don't think that's solely the way to go at all.

I think the idea is not that they don't care about anything. It's that what they care about is kicking butt at full power and looking awesome. Doing that most efficiently in the current system requires long rests after every significant engagement.

 

[tetrasodium]

It matters because the players want to complete the quest. If they don't, why exactly are they playing?


This, again, assumes complete disengagement for the game and the setting. If this is the case, why are the players even playing?


How are setting incentives not "credible incentives?" You are discounting everything other than mechanical incentives, and I do not think that's correct.


But the players NEED to choose to care. If they don't very little else matters and the chance of any kind of fun experience is minimal. And again, logical consequences of the PCs actions are not fiat -it's why there is a DM in the first place.

Look saying the balance on encounter design is off is one thing, and it can be shown and be addressed. One of the big problems with 5e was that the encounter guidelines were not widely known and were out of whack with how people actually played - that's an issue. But saying only mechanical incentives will work in fixing the issue? I don't think that's solely the way to go at all.

IoW original statement you've been defending since you made it falls flat because you were responding to @mamba saying "it’s not like you can opt out of the rest based approach of D&D either, the only difference is that in D&D taking a rest is always the right answer whereas in DS! it depends on the situation"

From a strictly mechanical stand point (assuming the rest is finished), sure taking a rest of optimal. But that's not at all true from an actual game perspective. There can be all sorts of problems for a group that rests "whenever they want," as opposed to wisely picking their spots.

the actual game design actively worked against supporting the GM because now ALL of the "all sorts of problems" are exclusively backed by fiat or "players choose not to rest for no mechanical reason" while the system incentivizes players to take endless chains of lunch breaks. Past editions of d&d had reasons the GM could supply to make it depend on the situation at a mechanical game perspective, 5e has shifted design to ensure the player equivalent of author self insert can always choose to ignore those reasons without meaningful consequence.

 

[dave2008]

The ones who control the money make the decisions, and they care about profit most. They can listen to others with different priorities, but are under no obligation to do what they say.

Well the people in charge should care about profit most, I mean they are responsible for the lives of thousands of people (at WotC and/or Hasbro). If they do not care about profit that would be incredible inhumane and cruel. However, caring about profit most doesn't tell you much. If they care about profit 51% and design 49% then they care about profit "most," but not much more than design. The issue is if they only care about profit, and that is unlikely IMO.

Additionally, even if the top is 100% motivated by profit, that doesn't make the game design or products motivated 100% by profit. The money controllers are typically fairly removed from day-to-day decisions and it is at these lower levels that other priorities permeate the game.

IMO this line of thought is to simple and reductive to attribute to 1 person, not to mention a company made up of thousands of people.

 

[Parmandur]

Well the people in charge should care about profit most, I mean they are responsible for the lives of thousands of people (at WotC and/or Hasbro). If they do not care about profit that would be incredible inhumane and cruel. However, caring about profit most doesn't tell you much. If they care about profit 51% and design 49% then they care about profit "most," but not much more than design. The issue is if they only care about profit, and that is unlikely IMO.

Additionally, even if the top is 100% motivated by profit, that doesn't make the game design or products motivated 100% by profit. The money controllers are typically fairly removed from day-to-day decisions and it is at these lower levels that other priorities permeate the game.

IMO this line of thought is to simple and reductive to attribute to 1 person, not to mention a company made up of thousands of people.

It also assumes that good game design and profit are antithetical, which is hardly a given.

 

[Mort]

IoW original statement you've been defending since you made it falls flat because you were responding to @mamba saying "it’s not like you can opt out of the rest based approach of D&D either, the only difference is that in D&D taking a rest is always the right answer whereas in DS! it depends on the situation"

the actual game design actively worked against supporting the GM because now ALL of the "all sorts of problems" are exclusively backed by fiat or "players choose not to rest for no mechanical reason" while the system incentivizes players to take endless chains of lunch breaks. Past editions of d&d had reasons the GM could supply to make it depend on the situation at a mechanical game perspective, 5e has shifted design to ensure the player equivalent of author self insert can always choose to ignore those reasons without meaningful consequence.

Yes, as I originally said, For the players to be properly challenged (assuming that's what the group actually wants, many don't), the DM must (and must know how to) control the pace of play. This isn't railroading or fiat, it's running the game and game management.

Your position seems to be that this is a BIG weakness of 5e, because it puts to much on the DM without giving them the proper mechanical tools to do so.

My position is, the weakness is in 5e not really explaining how this should be done and letting DMs flail about until they learn/figure it out. But once understood (and 5e/5.24 really DOES need to be much more explicit about it and what it entails) the system works fine in this regard.

 

[mamba]

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.

we have milestone leveling, maybe we should have milestone short and long rests too…

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Kinda. When counting fifteen standard encounters per level, normally one expects to "deep rest" near the middle of the level, before or after the eighth encounter. But it can happen, that a near TPK happens in the second encounter, then one or more players might decide to get their refresh early. Some players might play wisely and keep their refresh until just before the boss fight. So there is some flexibility.

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.

I dont decide if an encounter was "easy, moderate, or hard", until after the encounter is over. Easy is only worth half an encounter, and hard one-and-half. A near TPK is worth two encounters.

Nova is possible, but is better to save until near the end of the level, or for a boss fight.