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

[Micah Sweet]

II didn't say fix it yourself, I say the modularity is there. It is super easy for any third party, to create modules for 5e to adjust ot to a new style of play, because the structure of 5e is very modular. It is very easy to switch out rules and subsystem and replace them or add new ones.

I also find it a pity, that WotC didn't do anything wortwhile with the modularity of the system.
But I don't believe WotC will do that now, so I do it myself or get third party products.

5e is in the creative commons now. We can do with it whatever we want.

I only speak for myself, just like the rest of us, but for me, this is The Way.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And several hours at the game table. That's the issue.

That's my biggest issue. I would like, ideally, long rests to occur between sessions, but I have no ability whatsoever to get 6-8 encounters into a single session. One big one, two mediums or three small encounters would be the ideal for me, and leave "room" for more nuanced roleplaying. (I feel like the game forces me to "rush" a lot of my non-combat encounters to make sure that we have time to get our combat encounters done before the end of the session, which is another, but related problem.)

 

[Zardnaar]

People literally cheered when WotC told them Vancian casting was being removed.

"What people think of it" was wildly variable. People got HUGELY HUGELY mad about


Such a playtest would have revealed such a problem, yes, so then it wouldn't be one. That's...literally the point of real playtesting, as opposed to performative playtesting. It's literally about testing things to make sure they work, and if they don't, fix it.


The first one is irrelevant, and the second is literally the point of the exercise, so....I mean the answer is too complicated to be a one-word "yes" or "no".

But if I must answer as you've specifically presented it? No, I cannot see those possibilities in the way you described. Instead, I see them as follows:

1. During the playtest, nothing meaningful would be learned about presentation, because players expect pretty basic presentation at this point. No one complained that the "D&D Next" docs were black-and-white word docs in PDF form. So that part's just outright gone. Second, it is--or should be--expected that ideas will grow and evolve, and that feedback will be factored in. Thus, the only real element that people could have "revealed what [they] thought of it" would be...pretty much the exact things we already saw. In other words, I don't see how anything meaningful would change, other than the designers getting more direct/specific/usable feedback because of better survey design. That's....all good, as far as I can tell!
2. Fixing math errors like the thing you describe is one of the greatest benefits of doing what I've described. Most of the math errors in 5e, for example, come from not testing things. Not being rigorous. Not having well-constructed surveys, nor conducting robust simulations, nor proper statistical analysis. And the exact same thing is true of 4e. The math errors you love to crow about so much would never have happened, because this testing process would catch them and fix them before publication. So....yes I foresee that happening and it is a directly good thing.

Hence, the things you describe are either utterly irrelevant.....or precisely part of the plan.

They cheered at a specific seminar of people. Not representative of the larger group .

And people tend to cheer at those events with hype etc and a self selected bias to attend them in the first place.

 

[payn]

That's my biggest issue. I would like, ideally, long rests to occur between sessions, but I have no ability whatsoever to get 6-8 encounters into a single session. One big one, two mediums or three small encounters would be the ideal for me, and leave "room" for more nuanced roleplaying. (I feel like the game forces me to "rush" a lot of my non-combat encounters to make sure that we have time to get our combat encounters done before the end of the session, which is another, but related problem.)

It just occurred to me that a PFS scenario is likely a 6-8 encounter thing (Probably closer to 4-6). Are adventure league nights set for the one adventure day is one session dynamic?

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

That's the vibe your posts give off. I dont think we care tgat much if you dont like 5E.
. Im not saying its 100% guaranteed a playtest using your criteria for 4E would produce n essentials. But it coukdcreveal the fact people dont like it. I dont think its an impossible scenario.

Here's a question. You've seen how I post what do you think my favorite edition is?

 

[Minigiant]

A lot of the "general public" is still playing 5.0.

I heavily speculate that many are still playing 5.0 due to the Sunken Cost fallacy.

 

[M_Natas]

That's my biggest issue. I would like, ideally, long rests to occur between sessions, but I have no ability whatsoever to get 6-8 encounters into a single session. One big one, two mediums or three small encounters would be the ideal for me, and leave "room" for more nuanced roleplaying. (I feel like the game forces me to "rush" a lot of my non-combat encounters to make sure that we have time to get our combat encounters done before the end of the session, which is another, but related problem.)

Hrm - like, have you tried not having a long rest after a session?
An adventuring day and a session don't need to be same.
Like at my tables we sometimes have even 3 or 4 sessions before we have a long rest.

Before I came to ENworld I didn't even thought thag people would make a session basically an adventure day.

 

[Zardnaar]

We have been over this before. Its not nearly as modular as discussed and not even close to the satisfaction of folks that would like it to be.

They discovered it wasnt needed because 5E sold like hot cakes. There has been no driving need. Will that change in the future? I think this will be the test of evergreen D&D as this seems to be fertile ground saved for a rainy day. Could give legs tot he system when its needed; if its needed?

They haven't used the words ever green in a long time.

It was marketing speak anyway talking about concepts. I didnt take it as a promise just the goal of a longer edition cycle.

Or even the final edition cycle. If 5E tanked it probably would have been the last one.

 

[Zardnaar]

Which are exactly the games played by forum theorycrafters, not the general public.

That phrase has me wondering in 2092.
Local university club wasn't playing 3.0 anywhere close to forum theorycrafting.

I gas new players that year (except 1). He was a veteran and didnt run like the forums.

Most people weren't really plugged in the same way. Last year I had 3 groups at one point. Early this year as well.
1 powergamer. 1 veteran rest were "newbs". I learnt stuff off the "newbs" as well.

 

[Parmandur]

Hrm - like, have you tried not having a long rest after a session?
An adventuring day and a session don't need to be same.
Like at my tables we sometimes have even 3 or 4 sessions before we have a long rest.

Before I came to ENworld I didn't even thought thag people would make a session basically an adventure day.

It can be, it doesn't have to be, certainly.