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

[Micah Sweet]

Because "We need to wait PRECISE NUMBER OF HOURS before taking rest for another PRECISE NUMBER OF HOURS" is the kind of knowledge that falls under "exact mechanics" and not "noticing the patterns".

I disagree. Once you notice a pattern you can exploit it. You don't have to, but IMO choosing to do so isn't a "that guy" behavior to be scorned and censured.

 

[Clint_L]

I don’t get dungeon crawls, narratively, in the sense of characters taking long rests. Not unless the dungeon is truly vast, like the Underdark, but then it’s really the same as wilderness adventuring.

But if it’s a contained environment a long rest isn’t possible because the inhabitants will react, typically either by negotiating, attacking, or fleeing. If hostilities persist, they are going to do everything they can to prevent you resting. Or be gone, with all their loot, when you wake up.

And hopefully most stories have some sort of ticking clock attached, anyway.

 

[tetrasodium]

Is it rest and time, or is it the gods granting them the power after the rest and time, or is it the universe granting them the power after rest and time, or is it...

They know it happens after that, but they don't know the exact mechanic. And perhaps neither do the gods or spirits. The DM would have to make that decision.

This is about the PCs not knowing the actual mechanics, not about the PCs being unaware of patterns in the fiction.

I've been under the impression that this has been about 5e and some form of d&d or d& d-like setting. Was there a sudden context switch I missed where this was about some kind Lovecraftian horror based default?

What knowledge. When is a PC a good swordsman? 5th level? 8th level? 14th level? 20th level? Is it when they gain extra attack? Well, that happens at a whole bunch of different levels.

The PCs cannot know about levels. They can know that if they practice and/or learn a lot, they improve in skill, eventually getting good enough with the sword to hurt things faster. There's not going to be a level number attached to it in the game, though.

Using my standard workout example from the earlier I learned how long it takes to recover from changes in duration and intensity far more quickly than I spent in the the single fencing elective back in college. If I'm not recovered the next morning I generally will be the morning after that or can tell that I need yet another day if I've drastically overdone it. Why would you not assume the PC to have a solid feel for something so basic to simply living life by session zero or 1 absent Lovecraftian type Eldritch mechanics?

 

[Maxperson]

And I'm not gonna lie, the roleplay bit you did here sounds exactly like one of more infamous That Guy moments done by Orion Acaba in Critical Role Campaign 1. Is your character going to say he is not taking another step until you take a long rest next?

I was in a game once where a player was playing a thief(2nd edition) and over time we noticed stuff going missing from our packs and pouches, some of which disappeared when nobody outside of the party was around to be able to steal it.

Finally one day we had a meeting while the PC was away doing something in town. One of the party clerics decided to firetrap all of our bags, pouches, etc. and key them to us personally.

Some time later we had found our way into a dangerous elven ruins(we later found out it was Myth Drannor) that we hadn't gone very deeply into, because of that danger. As we were going down a hallway, we heard a whoosh and felt heat. I turned around to find said thief with his hand in my pouch, quite singed from the firetrap. I'm not sure why I didn't take the damage unless the DM just ruled that since I was attuned, it didn't hurt me.

The player whose thief just got burned, though, folded his arms across his chest and his character announced that he wasn't going a single step further unless we healed him. I just looked at him and said, "We're inside an extremely dangerous ruins. We are going that way. You are welcome to stay here all alone if you want." I'm not sure it took him even a full second to tell the DM he was going with us.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I'm not sure that one-off products, and that's what most of these are - even if a variety of one-offs, would constitute fracturing the audience as much as the 2e paradigm of having multiple settings with on-going support devoted to them. A one-off product may or may not appeal to individual consumers in the D&D market, but whether they do or don't, there's no expectation of ongoing support and that makes them like any other individual product - in which care variety probably helps them more than hurts them. If you don't get them with Dragonlance, maybe you will with Stranger Things, or Planescape, or Spelljammer. By contrast, 2e's proliferation of settings encouraged groups to focus on the specific setting(s) they liked, since it was unlikely anyone could keep up to speed on them all, and continued to lead them in that direction with future expectations.
So, I guess it's part of a choice of how to manage fracturing the audience - mainly the choice to minimize ongoing fracturing of the audience.

I understand why people reach for the 2e comparisons — it’s the clearest precedent we have for overextension and audience fragmentation. But that argument assumes the same market, audience, and infrastructure that existed thirty years ago, and that’s simply not true anymore. It’s become a kind of shorthand for “don’t take risks,” when the real takeaway should be that risk can be managed differently now.

Because the irony is, we already are fracturing the audience—just not in ways that build longevity. People who get pulled in by Dragonlance, Stranger Things, or Planescape often find that’s where the trail ends. Those experiences don’t continue in the official products; they’re one-and-done attractions. And while outside creators have stepped up to fill the gaps, many players still view (incorrectly) anything without the “D&D” label as lesser or unofficial.

That’s what makes this conversation important. The goal isn’t to multiply D&Ds—it’s to explore how different ways of playing could coexist under the same banner without fragmenting the base. Here’s an example of how that might look; it's something I wrote in another thread about the 2024 Starter Set.

Spoiler: If I had designed the 2024 Starter Set

If I had been in charge of the 2024 D&D Starter Set (Heroes of the Borderlands), I would have taken a different (and controversial?) approach.

A “starter set” implies two things: first, that it’s a stripped-down, temporary version of the “real” game, and second, that it exists mainly as a tutorial because the core game is too complex to teach directly. That framing undersells what a boxed set could be.

What a lot of players actually see in these sets are the extras—maps, handouts, cards, tactile components. These are valuable not just to beginners, but also to veteran groups who buy the box for those materials alone. The problem is we (usually) only ever get one box, only at the lowest levels, and then it’s done.

There’s also a less visible audience: groups who enjoy the lighter rules and accessible structure of the starter set, but find the full game too complex once they “graduate.” For them, there’s nowhere to go. Imagine if instead of just one box, there was a continuing line—expansions that add more content, more materials, and a few more options without forcing a jump into the full game. This way, casual players can stick with a system that works for them, while everything remains fully compatible with the core rules.

So, rather than a “starter set,” I would have released a true basic game set—a simpler, self-contained version of the game that can grow through additional boxes. It would onboard new players, support veterans with useful components, and provide an ongoing path for those who prefer a lighter playstyle. That way, we don’t just get people started—we keep them playing regardless of their preferred style of game or play.

Spoiler: Extra credit response

And for the sake of completeness, this was my reply to a comment from the OP ("sounds like BECMI all over again - which isn't a bad thing."):

BECMI was its own branch of D&D, with a different progression path and only slightly parallel with AD&D. What I’m suggesting wouldn’t be a separate rules line—it would remain fully compatible with the current core rules from the start, no conversion needed.

The bigger distinction for me is in the format, not the rules. I’d want to lean into the strengths of a boxed product: maps, cards, tokens, handouts—things that make the game feel closer to a boardgame in accessibility and presentation. The idea is that you can keep expanding with more boxes, whether you’re a casual group that prefers the simpler play experience or a veteran DM who just wants more high-quality components for their table.

So yes, it echoes the “ongoing path” feel of BECMI, but the intent here is to enrich the material experience of D&D, while staying lockstep with the core game.

I realize this is a longer read than most posts here, but I think it illustrates what’s often missing from these kinds of discussions. We talk about audience, markets, and past precedents as if the only choices are expansion or collapse — when in reality, the missing piece is imagination. It’s not about repeating history or defying it, but recognizing that “what worked once” isn’t the only model worth following.

 

[Maxperson]

Saying no to your players is not railroading. "No" is as much a tool in DM's arsenal, as is "yes", "yes and", "yes but", "no but" and "no and"

What you described is in fact pretty blatant railroading. The word no is a tool in the arsenal, but only when it makes sense in the fiction. "Can my character take a running leap and land on the other side of the grand canyon?" "No." "My fighter(1st level) runs up and grabs the king's crown off of his head." "No he doesn't. Before you can get within 10 feet of the king, his 8 guards(all 10th level) grab you and bear you to the ground."

If you say no to the group wanting to take a rest and there's nothing happening in the fiction that would actively prevent it, you are taking away their agency to force your personal agenda to happen. That's classic railroading.

Instead, just let the fiction flow as it makes sense. Once when one of my groups took a day to rest after hitting the first few caves of a humanoid cavern complex village, they arrived to find the enemy had fortified the area and set a bunch of traps. It went worse for them than if they had just pushed on. Another time there was a group of goblins that they hit hard and then ran away to rest. The remaining goblins knowing about the group of ogres that lived several miles away, went and bribed the ogres to help them defend themselves. When the PCs returned, they found the remaining goblins and 4 ogres. It went worse for them than if they had not stopped to rest.

Other times it won't go worse for them to rest, but the players aren't generally going to know when those times will be. Don't manufacture circumstances go to worse for the group, but if the fiction would result in it due to how the area dynamics work, go for it. The players will learn fast enough that resting might go well or it might go worse for them. They will time pressure themselves a lot of the time and press on. Other times they will be so beat up that they have no choice but to take the chance that the enemy will prepare, leave or something else.

 

[Maxperson]

Class and levels are known, again, simply.

You see 4 elves. All use longswords in one hand and no shield. They all wear chain shirts. They all have 2 attacks with the longsword. What class and levels are they?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You see 4 elves. All use longswords in one hand and no shield. They all wear chain shirts. They all have 2 attacks with the longsword. What class and levels are they?

I cast fireball to investigate how many hit points they have.

 

[Maxperson]

If you are operating on the premise that PCs are special, and serve different narrative purposes that are reflected in their mechanics, then yes, I can't refute you. I don't operate on that assumption, so the problem simply doesn't occur in my game.

No, I was not operating on that premise. That's simply the default of 5e. That said, the difference in 5e default makes no difference in my argument. It's presence would simply make things even harder. It's lack does not make the problem go away.

 

[Maxperson]

But if the PCs are aware of that pattern as you suggest, why wouldn't they act on that knowledge?

There is virtually always a time pressure.