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

[Minigiant]

A “drastic shift” is a bad idea. When people buy a game called D&D they expect to be able to play D&D, not some other game, no matter how good it is.

It's was D&D.

It just was with 10 fixes when the community was ready for 5 in 2008.

In 2025 today, the community wanted all 10 of 4e fixes (playtested better of course).

That's the fundamental problem that D&D has. Everybody knows what the issue is when it comes to bosses. The problem is that mandating them in the rules requires a heavy shift of the gameplay. The issue is that many people don't like what the problem looks like so they rather keep the same old and kludge it afterwards while complaining why the kludge is not in the bay system even though they won't like it if you put the fix in the base system.

No Take. Only throw. Says the dog

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In 2025 today, the community wanted all 10 of 4e fixes (playtested better of course).

Nope. Most of the players wanted the game to stay as it was. Which is what we got. It’s only forum theorycrafters who always want stuff “fixed”.

 

[payn]

Do remember that calling 4e "some other game" is, for a lot of us fans, straight-up fighting words. "Your game is awesome but it doesn't belong in MY D&D" is not a particularly friendly or positive attitude to take--it is gamer NIMBY.

Thats fair. Folks who enjoy 5E constantly being told its bad and that being popular is no substitute for "objectively" better design but they are just too stupid to understand that is also not particularly friendly. Just sayin.

 

[mamba]

A “drastic shift” is a bad idea. When people buy a game called D&D they expect to be able to play D&D, not some other game, no matter how good it is.

but no one really knows where that line is. Is any game with elves, dwarves, dragonborn, barbarians, and sorcerers D&D? Clearly not, see 4e, but it still is a pretty wide spectrum, see 1e/2e, 3e, and 5e

I refuse to believe that having a good game design means a game cannot be D&D at the same time

 

[mamba]

Ultimately, I think the demand for tightly-designed games is not sufficient to sustain an enterprise on the scale of WotC's D&D.

so you think that the casual gamer will bounce off a game with tighter math?

If a tightly-designed D&D could capture the same audience, WotC could sustain it after all

 

[Parmandur]

so you think that the casual gamer will bounce off a game with tighter math?

If a tightly-designed D&D could capture the same audience, WotC could sustain it after all

Well, yes: tighter math means it is easier to get wrong as a DM. Keeping the math loose and balanced around a maximum means there is lots of room for improvisation and winging it.

 

[Minigiant]

Nope. Most of the players wanted the game to stay as it was. Which is what we got. It’s only forum theorycrafters who always want stuff “fixed”.

Nope.

Draw Steel, Daggerheart, other RPGs and even 5.5e are just reinventing the fixes 4e introduced. Just not as ugly

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thats fair. Folks who enjoy 5E constantly being told its bad and that being popular is no substitute for "objectively" better design but they are just too stupid to understand that is also not particularly friendly. Just sayin.

If what I said made you or others feel that way, then I apologize. That was a crappy thing for me to do.

I still do think that it is quite possible for folks to hold beliefs about what is "correct" in design or execution which are built on a flawed foundation. Both because I've experienced that exact feeling, and because I've seen how the exact same idea presented in different ways can make someone hate it or love it. But if I insulted your intelligence, or anyone's intelligence, by expressing that, then I f#$ked up.

I'm sorry.

 

[mamba]

Well, yes: tighter math means it is easier to get wrong as a DM. Keeping the math loose and balanced around a maximum means there is lots of room for improvisation and winging it.

you can always go lower than what the encounter building rules tell you. People apparently do that today and are happy with it.

The difference with tighter math is that you have a better idea of when an encounter is easy and when it is too hard. No one is forcing ‘you’ to always tightly create your encounters, the difference is that you could, so I am not seeing that anything is being taken away by it

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nope.

Draw Steel, Daggerheart, other RPGs and even 5.5e are just reinventing the fixes 4e introduced. Just not as ugly

An undiplomatic, but fairly accurate and very pithy, summary.

PF1e is much the same way. When all are trying to address the same set of problems, one should expect the solutions to look similar, but not identical.