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

[Scott Christian]

The answer to your question is yes I was being serious. I say that because the bit you questioned was taking about how 5e stripped away the mechanical elements that would once have been central to phase3. The systems failure there is pretty obvious given that so many posters have bristled in defense of the 5e ruleset by reusing the original assertion or giving a narrative example of phase2/3 while claiming it to stand in for phase 3 or simply refusing to accept that narrative consequences are not the same as mechanical consequences.

Your response sounds like game defense: using amorphous language definitions and positions to simply state, "I am above, no below, no to the side, no to the quadrant right and above you." It is simple. Are you positing that in a role playing game, without silly descriptions of phases, that narrative consequences are inconsequential?

If you say "Yes," I will respect your opinion and move on. Clearly, you do not role play in your D&D game. If you say "Yes, but..." or "No," I'm listening.

 

[Mort]

Post it then. Please. It should be easy. Show me where they discounted the advice in the DMG.

What I was specifically thinking about was the (2014) DMG advice in Chapter 3 creating adventures:

2. Determine the Villain’s Actions

and

5. Anticipate the Villain’s Reactions

Both of these depend on narrative consequences. If the players ignore the villains actions (in the discussion at hand by resting when the villain is doing their thing) the consequences are narrative not mechanical (the villain accomplishes their goal or gets away etc.)

For some reason I can't seem to embed links on my phone (stuck away from computer) but an easy example is post #1,516 in this thread where @tetrasodium EXPRESSLY states narrative consequences are not the same as mechanical ones and heavily implies they are inferior because they have no real teeth and players can just ignore them if they wish to play optimally. This goes directly against how the DMG suggests planning adventures.

 

[Distracted DM]

@mearls We've identified the problem- is there a recommended fix for this?

 

[tetrasodium]

If the players have agreed to play their character in a roleplaying version of the game, then they will not ignore narrative consequences. For example, a good party isn't going to rest and let the princess die just because they aren't at 100% resources. That would be bad faith play for a good group like that.

except that we live in a world where this is a reality

Spoiler

I could add dragonage skyrim & a whole bunch of others too

When players come to the table to play a modern ttrpg already familiar with roleplaying games through their experience playing roleplaying games on their console/computer for years & the mechanics of the game encourage them to maintain the same mindset it is the fault of that ruleset for supporting that mindset rather than encouraging otherwise.

Assuming the players are playing in good faith, then their characters are a part of the game world fiction and care about what happens in it. They won't shrug their shoulders at the princess dying when playing heroes.

I mean, I listed one in the quote there.

Except you did not name a mechanical consequence, you named a build choice.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

That gets to why I passed over your "example" as a slip of the tongue rather than something showing a mechanical consequence when it was an example supporting my point of how narrative consequences rely on the players choosing to care.

When a paladin falls it looks like

Spoiler: this

That is very different from a player saying "can I switch my subclass to oathbreaker?".

This is a critical distinction between consequence & choice when players come to the table already familiar with role playing games through fallout dragonage skyrim Wow BG3 & so on because 5e removed and designed against the ones d&d ones had. Examples include things like needing NPCs to willingly be involved in supporting the magic item churn players know their PCs need, likewise with regular supply of consumables beyond those randomly found, needing safe places to chill for days or weeks if recovery, potentially needing qualified individuals to supply long term care with healing, not wanting to have their paladin fall/druid do a nono/monk become non-lawful/etc, or even the super credible risk of resting your way into a death spiral in an unsafe location one random encounter interruption at a time.

d&d once had scads of obvious mechanical consequences to serve as teeth but that is no longer the case and the days of coming the table with a video game mindset being super unusual are at least a couple decades past. Some of those would even support your earlier nods towards PCs becoming evil villains & such, but we are talking about 5e where they only apply for example of what the system doing more than relegating such things to the realm of problems that only matter as much as players themselves choose to make them matter.

What I was specifically thinking about was the (2014) DMG advice in Chapter 3 creating adventures:

2. Determine the Villain’s Actions

and

5. Anticipate the Villain’s Reactions

Both of these depend on narrative consequences. If the players ignore the villains actions (in the discussion at hand by resting when the villain is doing their thing) the consequences are narrative not mechanical (the villain accomplishes their goal or gets away etc.)

For some reason I can't seem to embed links on my phone (stuck away from computer) but an easy example is post #1,516 in this thread where @tetrasodium EXPRESSLY states narrative consequences are not the same as mechanical ones

a screwdriver and a hammer are different tools with different uses to be used for different tasks. A hammer being a poor choice for working with screws and a screwdriver a poor choice for hammering nails says nothing about the tools themselves being overall superior or inferior in all tasks either. I think most would consider such a value judgement of the tool just as odd as your confused misattribution or unwillingness to separate short rest classes taking short restsas distinct from long rest classes taking long rests when . talking about one or the other

Narrative consequences and mechanical costs are two different tools with different uses to be deployed for different reasons. LOKG rests and SHORT tests are also discreet individual tools in the player's tool belt and they are used for different reasons with different results. I suppose that I should also add to that and say that a short rest nova loop being performed by players with short rest classes does not require a long rest and does not power long rest classes into a nova loop capable state because long rest classes require a long rest to achieve such a thing

and heavily implies they are inferior because they have no real teeth and players can just ignore them if they wish to play optimally. This goes directly against how the DMG suggests planning adventures.

The trouble is that you are ignoring that the post you reference is talking about the scenario where the players come to the table with a video game mindset expecting to be able to SHORT rest up their SHORT rest nova capability every fight or two because a handful of classes are designed to look that way and overly generous resting rules encourage those players to see their nova loop as the intended play style. A group like this for example. Coincidentally just a few posts later you jumped in quoting that post saying you've never seen players like that and asked me about them demanding LONG rests as if you did not recognize or accept that the classes at the core of the problem you were quoting were SHORT rest classes taking excessive SHORT rests

 

[Campbell]

So, one of the big issues from my perspective is that the narrative consequence for resting feel fuzzy. One way to deal with this is to have player facing clocks with explicit consequences like this is when reinforcements arrive. That way it becomes a part of the game experience rather than a GM stick that feels like random punishment.

 

[Maxperson]

except that we live in a world where this is a reality

Spoiler

View attachment 419984
I could add dragonage skyrim & a whole bunch of others too

When players come to the table to play a modern ttrpg already familiar with roleplaying games through their experience playing roleplaying games on their console/computer for years & the mechanics of the game encourage them to maintain the same mindset it is the fault of that ruleset for supporting that mindset rather than encouraging otherwise.

You need to back that up with some facts, because I've taught a bunch of folks who came to D&D from video games and zero of them were like that.

It's almost as if they understood the difference between a sit down roleplaying game and a video game. I blame both Critical Role and their having brains.

Except you did not name a mechanical consequence, you named a build choice.

No. I named a consequence. Falling from grace is not a build choice, because it's not a player choice. It's a mechanical consequence that came from the narrative action.

But here's another. Milestone XP. Tons of DMs use it, and many of them give out levels after a successful adventure. Sit on your asses resting and let the princess die, receive the mechanical consequence of not leveling up.

When a paladin falls it looks like

Spoiler: this

View attachment 419985

That is very different from a player saying "can I switch my subclass to oathbreaker?".

Correct. It's a mechanical consequence of the narrative choice to engage in an evil act by letting the princess die when she could have been saved, as well as the evil behavior of not caring that she died. It was not a player choice.

This is a critical distinction between consequence & choice when players come to the table already familiar with role playing games through fallout dragonage skyrim Wow BG3 & so on because 5e removed and designed against the ones d&d ones had. Examples include things like needing NPCs to willingly be involved in supporting the magic item churn players know their PCs need, likewise with regular supply of consumables beyond those randomly found, needing safe places to chill for days or weeks if recovery, potentially needing qualified individuals to supply long term care with healing, not wanting to have their paladin fall/druid do a nono/monk become non-lawful/etc, or even the super credible risk of resting your way into a death spiral in an unsafe location one random encounter interruption at a time.

Yeah. I've seen none of that from the young video game players that I've taught the game to, nor from those young folks I observe playing D&D at my friend's game store.

 

[Mort]

a screwdriver and a hammer are different tools with different uses to be used for different tasks. A hammer being a poor choice for working with screws and a screwdriver a poor choice for hammering nails says nothing about the tools themselves being overall superior or inferior in all tasks either. I think most would consider such a value judgement of the tool just as odd as your confused misattribution or unwillingness to separate short rest classes taking short restsas distinct from long rest classes taking long rests when . talking about one or the other

Narrative consequences and mechanical costs are two different tools with different uses to be deployed for different reasons. LOKG rests and SHORT tests are also discreet individual tools in the player's tool belt and they are used for different reasons with different results. I suppose that I should also add to that and say that a short rest nova loop being performed by players with short rest classes does not require a long rest and does not power long rest classes into a nova loop capable state because long rest classes require a long rest to achieve such a thing

The trouble is that you are ignoring that the post you reference is talking about the scenario where the players come to the table with a video game mindset expecting to be able to SHORT rest up their SHORT rest nova capability every fight or two because a handful of classes are designed to look that way and overly generous resting rules encourage those players to see their nova loop as the intended play style. A group like this for example. Coincidentally just a few posts later you jumped in quoting that post saying you've never seen players like that and asked me about them demanding LONG rests as if you did not recognize or accept that the classes at the core of the problem you were quoting were SHORT rest classes taking excessive SHORT rests

except that we live in a world where this is a reality

Spoiler

View attachment 419984
I could add dragonage skyrim & a whole bunch of others too

When players come to the table to play a modern ttrpg already familiar with roleplaying games through their experience playing roleplaying games on their console/computer for years & the mechanics of the game encourage them to maintain the same mindset it is the fault of that ruleset for supporting that mindset rather than encouraging otherwise.

Except you did not name a mechanical consequence, you named a build choice.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

That gets to why I passed over your "example" as a slip of the tongue rather than something showing a mechanical consequence when it was an example supporting my point of how narrative consequences rely on the players choosing to care.

When a paladin falls it looks like

Spoiler: this

View attachment 419985

That is very different from a player saying "can I switch my subclass to oathbreaker?".

This is a critical distinction between consequence & choice when players come to the table already familiar with role playing games through fallout dragonage skyrim Wow BG3 & so on because 5e removed and designed against the ones d&d ones had. Examples include things like needing NPCs to willingly be involved in supporting the magic item churn players know their PCs need, likewise with regular supply of consumables beyond those randomly found, needing safe places to chill for days or weeks if recovery, potentially needing qualified individuals to supply long term care with healing, not wanting to have their paladin fall/druid do a nono/monk become non-lawful/etc, or even the super credible risk of resting your way into a death spiral in an unsafe location one random encounter interruption at a time.

d&d once had scads of obvious mechanical consequences to serve as teeth but that is no longer the case and the days of coming the table with a video game mindset being super unusual are at least a couple decades past. Some of those would even support your earlier nods towards PCs becoming evil villains & such, but we are talking about 5e where they only apply for example of what the system doing more than relegating such things to the realm of problems that only matter as much as players themselves choose to make them matter.

a screwdriver and a hammer are different tools with different uses to be used for different tasks. A hammer being a poor choice for working with screws and a screwdriver a poor choice for hammering nails says nothing about the tools themselves being overall superior or inferior in all tasks either. I think most would consider such a value judgement of the tool just as odd as your confused misattribution or unwillingness to separate short rest classes taking short restsas distinct from long rest classes taking long rests when . talking about one or the other

Narrative consequences and mechanical costs are two different tools with different uses to be deployed for different reasons. LOKG rests and SHORT tests are also discreet individual tools in the player's tool belt and they are used for different reasons with different results. I suppose that I should also add to that and say that a short rest nova loop being performed by players with short rest classes does not require a long rest and does not power long rest classes into a nova loop capable state because long rest classes require a long rest to achieve such a thing

The trouble is that you are ignoring that the post you reference is talking about the scenario where the players come to the table with a video game mindset expecting to be able to SHORT rest up their SHORT rest nova capability every fight or two because a handful of classes are designed to look that way and overly generous resting rules encourage those players to see their nova loop as the intended play style. A group like this for example. Coincidentally just a few posts later you jumped in quoting that post saying you've never seen players like that and asked me about them demanding LONG rests as if you did not recognize or accept that the classes at the core sorryof the problem you were quoting were SHORT rest classes taking excessive SHORT rests

I apologize, the fact that you were specifically talking about short rest abuse WAS lost somewhere in there for me.

That said, a standard short rest is an hour. Taking one ALL the time still has serious narrative issues. That's been discussed to death so I'll just leave it at that.

But I'm not actually opposed to mechanical consequences either, if necessary (I just haven't found them so). And the DMG has a few. Plus, if the group really has that video game mindset (or even if not), impose the BG3 short rest rule - maximum of 2 between long rests. That should severely limit spamming them right there.

 

[tetrasodium]

You need to back that up with some facts, because I've taught a bunch of folks who came to D&D from video games and zero of them were like that.

It's almost as if they understood the difference between a sit down roleplaying game and a video game. I blame both Critical Role and their having brains.

No. I named a consequence. Falling from grace is not a build choice, because it's not a player choice. It's a mechanical consequence that came from the narrative action.

But here's another. Milestone XP. Tons of DMs use it, and many of them give out levels after a successful adventure. Sit on your asses resting and let the princess die, receive the mechanical consequence of not leveling up.

Correct. It's a mechanical consequence of the narrative choice to engage in an evil act by letting the princess die when she could have been saved, as well as the evil behavior of not caring that she died. It was not a player choice.

Yeah. I've seen none of that from the young video game players that I've taught the game to, nor from those young folks I observe playing D&D at my friend's game store.

I refuse to unpack this fisking but will say that Oathbreaker is a subclass on page 97 of the DMG. It may or mat not have fallen a bit in the rankings against some of the newer subclasses, but it's generally considered to be relatively powerful with an unusual set of subclass spells for a paladin a fear aura & eventual nonmagical bludgeoning piercing slashing damage resistance

 

[Maxperson]

I refuse to unpack this fisking but will say that Oathbreaker is a subclass on page 97 of the DMG. It may or mat not have fallen a bit in the rankings against some of the newer subclasses, but it's generally considered to be relatively powerful with an unusual set of subclass spells for a paladin a fear aura & eventual nonmagical bludgeoning piercing slashing damage resistance

It's in the DMG for a reason, and that reason is that the DM applies it to the PC, not the player. It's not a subclass meant for players to pick. It's a consequence for narrative action or narrative and mechanical action.

Since you wouldn't respond to it in the other post. Here's another example of a mechanical consequence for narrative choices.

Milestone XP. Tons of DMs use it, and many of them give out levels after a successful adventure. Sit on your asses resting and let the princess die, receive the mechanical consequence of not leveling up.

 

[overgeeked]

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!"

I have. Met them in droves when running 5E. It‘s one of the many reasons I quit running it. The players pushed to rest as often as possible and refused to push through. Town invaded? Don‘t care. Prince sacrificed? Don‘t care. If they couldn‘t start every fight as close to full as possible they‘d simply shrug and wait. They had zero interest in risk or challenge of any kind.