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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

In TTRPGs, it is much easier and socially acceptable to change the game to suit you and your group. Not the case with all your other examples.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think we should ditch the system (whatever system you like) entirely, but changing it to some degree is not that big a deal. I do it all the time.

If that is the case, then why do we need to stick to a system, despite its flaws?

Why wouldn't we just go freeform, and ditch the problematic system entirely, just keeping the cool ideas?

It's not like that's that hard--nor is it alien to TTRPGing, since that's what the Free Kriegsspiel folks are all on about.

Yet folks do not do that. They specifically preserve the system, even when they know the system is getting in the way, even when they know something could be done. DSP's Spheres system is the only attempt I've ever seen at actually fixing 3e's structure, and while it has its defenders, it isn't the primary way folks play 3e (that is, PF1e), and (to the best of my knowledge) wasn't such even before 5e came along. It was just a fairly popular alternative, like psionics or Bo9S stuff--niche, but a relatively large niche.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm sorry, you seem very angry at the game, and possibily at your players. I hope you'll soon find some suitable game for you.

I'd rather not engage with you more on this topic if you don't mind, first because I have a lot of trouble understanding what you write, second because I have not encountered any of the problems you seem to be speaking of (not being frightened to be at 5 HP or less before an encounter without access to your high spell slots, not caring about exhaustion, "5 mwd nova loop", disempowered GM — that last one is especially alien to my perspective).

Multiple posters have made posts pointing out that they have seen the behavior in question. Did you not see them before choosing to imply that I alone am the single GM to ever see that sort of "alien" behavior?

It says a great deal that so many of the posters defending the rules involved are the ones who claim to have never seen it while tossing around terms like "weirdo" "TFG" "angry" & "alien".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To reiterate: if the rules incentivise unfun gameplay, it is a rules issue, not a player issue. In well a designed game playing optimally will lead to fun gameplay. (Which is not to say that people need to play games optimally or that playing sub-optimally should lead to lack of fun.)

 

[Jacob Lewis]

What you are talking about is what I consider to be D&D's greatest strength. D&D will never be great at any playstyle, but with no tweaking to minimal tweaking, it can do pretty much every playstyle decently well to pretty good. If you want better than pretty good, you'll need to go to a different system that is focused on the playstyle you enjoy.

For most groups, though, the broad ability of D&D to playstyles decently well to pretty good means that in a group with a mix of playstyles, you can often run the game so that it appeals to everyone playing. Some playstyle preferences are mutually exclusive, but often they are not. And when it's a group of friends playing, they want everyone to enjoy themselves.

I think there’s a lot of unexamined assumption in that framing. You’re describing an idealized table of close friends who all share compatible preferences and are content to compromise. That certainly exists, but it’s not universal—and it’s not a design metric. Many groups aren’t built from existing friendships; they form through shared interests, systems, or playstyles. Sometimes they find harmony, sometimes they don’t. And in many cases, people tolerate compromises simply because they don’t have better options. That doesn’t mean the design is meeting their needs—it just means they’ve learned to work around it.

That’s really the point. When the system relies on “you can make it work” as its selling point, it’s outsourcing the hard part of design to the players. The more we celebrate that as a strength, the more we normalize the idea that “good enough” should be the standard. And when anyone questions that—asks for clearer guidance, deeper systems, or a stronger design spine—it’s often met with defensiveness, as if asking for improvement somehow threatens the comfort of those who’ve already settled in.

D&D’s flexibility is real, but it comes with a hidden cost: the assumption that satisfaction and adaptability are the same thing. They aren’t. Some players adapt because they’re content; others adapt because they have to.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Having both done it and DM'd it, no it's not. It was always taken and it was very good, but it didn't break the game in any way.

That was the point, yes. It's objectively one of the most powerful feats in the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In TTRPGs, it is much easier and socially acceptable to change the game to suit you and your group. Not the case with all your other examples.

Is it though?

Because that seems to be exactly the claim being made: that it ISN'T easy to fix 3e. That it is, in fact, pretty difficult to fix it, but people want the concepts, so they just...use it anyway, despite knowing that it will break.

I don't think we should ditch the system (whatever system you like) entirely, but changing it to some degree is not that big a deal. I do it all the time.

Okay. I don't think anyone should be required to rewrite the system just to make it function the way its designers intended it to function.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To reiterate: if the rules incentivise unfun gameplay, it is a rules issue, not a player issue. In well a designed game playing optimally will lead to fun gameplay. (Which is not to say that people need to play games optimally or that playing sub-optimally should lead to lack of fun.)

100% agreed.

This is why I've beaten my "perverse incentives" drum for something like eight years around here.

Game design is very much about being vigilant about perverse incentives--and re-evaluating whether an incentive is in fact perverse, or if it is pointing you to a different vision for your game. I think we can all agree that CoDzilla or the Omniscificer illustrate perverse incentives, but it's also possible to kick out things that are actually fine, wholesome, positive things that just didn't happen to be part of the original vision.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it though?

Because that seems to be exactly the claim being made: that it ISN'T easy to fix 3e. That it is, in fact, pretty difficult to fix it, but people want the concepts, so they just...use it anyway, despite knowing that it will break.


Okay. I don't think anyone should be required to rewrite the system just to make it function the way its designers intended it to function.

I change the system to make it function the way I want it to. And again, a full rewrite isn't necessary if you're using a decent base.

 

[payn]

And yes, I know the easy response is “then play a different game.” I do, and I have. But that isn’t really the point. The discussion isn’t about personal satisfaction—it’s about how D&D defines itself as the central game of the hobby while remaining deliberately noncommittal about its own design priorities. That approach keeps the audience unified under one brand but ensures that a large portion of that audience will always be partially unsatisfied. It’s not about wanting to leave D&D—it’s about recognizing that the design philosophy itself guarantees this constant tension will never go away.

Does it though? Does D&D define itself as the central game of the hobby or do we do that? I mean, its the obviously the largest in market share and WotC certainly will note that, but do they brand it as the "central game of the hobby"?

Aside from that, I know its a rub but leaving many partially unsatisfied is better than the alternative of leaving them completely unsatisfied. Those tensions unfortunately are here to stay no matter the path taken.