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

But this is precisely my problem with much of this stuff.

"The concept is so good! We should keep playing it!"

Concept is easy. Anyone can produce cool conceptual ideas.

A system exists in order to perform a function. Systems are inherently teleological. They are designed to fulfill some purpose, whatever that purpose might be--it's free for the designer to pick. But if that system fails to perform its function, then no matter how cool the concepts are, it fails to achieve this.

It just amazes me that we have this perception in TTRPGs, when in literally all other gaming media, indeed arguably all other media, flaws like this are never patched over with "but the concept is so good!" Video games? Hell no. Board games? They'll get skewered--consider the hate Monopoly gets. Card games? People are quite unafraid to savage any, whether collectible or not, if they think the design has gone wrong, regardless of how good the lore/concepts might be. Toys? God, if the toy itself is defective, the hue and cry could be heard from the ISS. And I wasn't joking about other media. How many movies have you heard of or seen, where you fully believe that the concepts and lore were super interesting, but the actual execution is garbage? How about a song, or a TV show, where the idea was good but it just failed to land?

Yet in TTRPGs, if the system puts awesome ideas in your head, it couldn't matter two figs whether the rules are actively harmful to the experience or not. They'll be papered over with gusto. It's incredibly irritating and I genuinely do not understand why this phenomenon occurs.

Fun to read. Alot of the time maybe to fiddle.

The spell sphere system in 2E comes to mind. Worked well enough but fiddle.

4E kinda fell apart for the DM and the grinding combats. Broken in different way. B/X was better balanced in that regard.
. You've said you cant find a 4E DM. If fans not fun for DM player class balance wont matter net result is 0 game.

So your concept has to ve appealing. Prestige classes in 3E. Most were fine but you had a few that comboed togather to erll. If games finished around level 7 though it doesn't really matter as youre only seeing 2 levels of them generally (5 ABC/xyz 2).

3.5 the other thing was I suspect most players were casual. They didn't play like forum members did with their theory crafting.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I know you are certain about this but I have to tell you I still think you’re wrong.

And mechanical perfection in RPGs is still subjective. Mechanically for what purpose, that’s a better question.

Edit to add that experience is a subjective thing already.
And the point in Mearla posting wasn't tht they didn't achieve their design goals (to create a well balancwd 20 combat round Adventjre Day clearing a stocked Dunfeon), but that perhaps their design goals were flawed.

Granting that case, I think the designers picked out by walking backwards into facilitating more narrative laws takes combat games as a side effect.
 

Druid + natural spell was not a rare combo. It was a basic PHB feat that every player who was playing a druid and actually read the feats took, because it made sense to take it.

It was a very powerful class on its own, yes.

Nothing you cast while wildshaped couldn't be cast if you weren't wildshaped, and you weren't using your wildshape to rip people apart that round if you were casting a spell.

People choosing to play druid was rare. And how many reached level 6 and chose the feat?

It was sub 10% of players choosing the class iirc in one of the surveys. If games generally finished around lvl 7......
 

Some final thoughts on 3.5. I had around 50 books for it. I didn't have all tge required books for sne of the power builds.

BUT look at it this way.

Most players of it were casuals. They probably had the phb maybe 1 more. Sone didn't have tgat.

I suspect most games play was level 3-7. Aka the sweet spot. Then as now high level games were a minority.

If that's true how broken was 3.5 that the typical player would experience? Even a level 6 druid wouldn't be that bad and that's about the worst you could do core rules only.

With limited social media back then forum goers tend to think their views are universal especially if enough of them congregate in one place and/or a bubble forms.
 



Sure, but following WotC's flawed designs is on us, if we do it.

Its not really wotc fault its ours or blame the newbies.

They cant force you to play xyz way regardless of what the rules say.

Youre never gonna get it right by saying "we expect 123 encounters". You cant enforce it at the table.

Pre 3E there was no expectation. You stopped going when you wanted to.
 

Im with you on this, but I think there is considerable risk to WotC as the only ones capable of doing a mutli-product offering. It may bring in more players and success and overall happier community, but it could also split them and cause a dip in overall sales. ITs a risk wher eI think WotC is asking is the juice worth the squeeze? I know there are way more customers now than ever before, so some of the past lessons about too many product lines might be too cautious of a tale, but without any serious competition I just dont see WotC making this move.
Perhaps. But then again, WotC has already shown they’re willing to take risks—for example, crossing brands with Magic: The Gathering, Stranger Things, and Critical Role, each aimed at niche or outside audiences. Those products don’t appeal to everyone, but they still consume development time and represent selective gambles. The real question isn’t if they risk fracturing their audience, but how they choose to manage it.

If fans of 4E, older editions, or even the 2014 version of 5E have drifted away because the current model doesn’t serve them, the audience is already fragmented—just in a way that sends their money elsewhere. So what’s the better business decision: keep reshaping the core game and hope the next iteration pleases more than it alienates, or offer complementary versions that let players rejoin the brand on their own terms?

Imagine a “D&D Lite” or “D&D Tactical” released alongside the mainline system. Would existing fans care? Probably not—they still have their preferred experience. But those who left for alternatives might come back to a familiar name that finally fits their table. That’s not fracture; that’s reclamation.

In a sense, this is what 5E already tried to do (and, for the most part, succeeded). It promised unity through modularity—a single, flexible framework that could accommodate any table, no matter the edition or playstyle preference. But somewhere along the way, that vision either proved impossible to realize or was quietly outsourced to the OGL ecosystem to sort out. The result is a system that’s stable, familiar, and wildly successful—but also stagnant. For every new player it welcomes, there’s another who’s drifted away, not out of disdain, but out of disinterest. The game didn’t fail them outright—it just stopped evolving in ways that mattered to them.

I don’t believe WotC will ever take the route of formally splitting its design focus—and most of us already know that. But that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? Once we accept it won’t happen, we stop thinking about what could make the game better and start settling for what we’re given.

And I guarantee—that’s exactly what they’ve been banking on for years.
 

Perhaps. But then again, WotC has already shown they’re willing to take risks—for example, crossing brands with Magic: The Gathering, Stranger Things, and Critical Role, each aimed at niche or outside audiences. Those products don’t appeal to everyone, but they still consume development time and represent selective gambles. The real question isn’t if they risk fracturing their audience, but how they choose to manage it.

If fans of 4E, older editions, or even the 2014 version of 5E have drifted away because the current model doesn’t serve them, the audience is already fragmented—just in a way that sends their money elsewhere. So what’s the better business decision: keep reshaping the core game and hope the next iteration pleases more than it alienates, or offer complementary versions that let players rejoin the brand on their own terms?

Imagine a “D&D Lite” or “D&D Tactical” released alongside the mainline system. Would existing fans care? Probably not—they still have their preferred experience. But those who left for alternatives might come back to a familiar name that finally fits their table. That’s not fracture; that’s reclamation.

In a sense, this is what 5E already tried to do (and, for the most part, succeeded). It promised unity through modularity—a single, flexible framework that could accommodate any table, no matter the edition or playstyle preference. But somewhere along the way, that vision either proved impossible to realize or was quietly outsourced to the OGL ecosystem to sort out. The result is a system that’s stable, familiar, and wildly successful—but also stagnant. For every new player it welcomes, there’s another who’s drifted away, not out of disdain, but out of disinterest. The game didn’t fail them outright—it just stopped evolving in ways that mattered to them.

I don’t believe WotC will ever take the route of formally splitting its design focus—and most of us already know that. But that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? Once we accept it won’t happen, we stop thinking about what could make the game better and start settling for what we’re given.

And I guarantee—that’s exactly what they’ve been banking on for years.

They cant really support multiple D&Ds. Hasn't been a thing since 1994 and they had 3 briefly in the 70s.
 

Remove ads

Top