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

[Parmandur]

I assume that most 5e players are not fans of any of the earlier editions that you mention.

As of a few years ago, the majority of people who have ever played D&D started with 5E.

I mean, we're talking about rules for playing a game. And frankly, if I could come up with a game that would be wildly popular for 5 years I'd see that as a success. That's a lot of people enjoying my game! The fact that, after 5 years, it loses replay value doesn't seem like a very serious weakness, if (say) a million people enjoy it in the meantime.

Indeed: he main target audience is people aged 12-24. WotC certainly doesn't mind veteran players, but that's not most players.

 

[mamba]

At a lot of tables, the GM doesn't control things by anticipating the maths. The GM controls things by intervening directly, fudging dice rolls or manipulating the fictional situation.

tighter math still lets you manipulate the situation, and you still can fudge die rolls too.

You might actually have to do that less because you could better predict the outcome. If you vibe your encounters instead of giving them some thought, you might have to do it as much as before however, at least if you do not just manipulate the tough ones but also the ones that turned out too easy

 

[mamba]

At some point we have to put some blame of the community

Problems with D&D have been known for years.
They don't get fixed because large swathes of the community refuse to either

1. Let their old books go for possible, newer, non-compatible.better designed book
2. Share the design space with fans of other styles of D&D and allow for true official variant play rules

The "Boss monster die too easily" problem is fixable. Easily.

We won't let WOTC fix it and encourage designers who don't desire to fix it.

I blame WotC more, for one they are supposed to be designers, not just pollsters. For another they did shut down changes that made it past the threshold because they got cold feet and feared they might not be compatible enough (they did not mention which ones)

It’s also not like they asked for feedback on every change, some they just decided to do

 

[Parmandur]

I blame WotC more, for one they are supposed to be designers, not just pollsters. For another they did shut down changes that made it past the threshold because they got cold feet and feared they might not be compatible enough (they did not mention which ones)

User design is about designing for what end users want and need, not abstract goals.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not the one arguing that financial success is the one and only standard that ever matters.

Again, I think you are the only one saying that. There is a difference between pointing out reality and discussing the things thar are important in life. People are not suggesting that commercial success is the only thing matters. They are simply stating the reality that commercial success is important to a business. It is a motivating factor for a business and more so for a large one with significant financial responsibilities.

 

[Minigiant]

I blame WotC more, for one they are supposed to be designers, not just pollsters. For another they did shut down changes that made it past the threshold because they got cold feet and feared they might not be compatible enough (they did not mention which ones)

It’s also not like they asked for feedback on every change, some they just decided to do

So WOTC actually listens to the community, it's their fault

 

[Yaarel]

I blame WotC more, for one they are supposed to be designers, not just pollsters. For another they did shut down changes that made it past the threshold because they got cold feet and feared they might not be compatible enough (they did not mention which ones)

It’s also not like they asked for feedback on every change, some they just decided to do

I prefer the WotC designers consult with the majority of players when designing products. This democracy sotospeak doesnt always go my way. But the products are more robust and more players either love or can live with these products. If more players are playing then the tradition of gaming stays healthy and passes on to the next generations of gamers.

Rarely, but it seems to happen, the designers did something without consulting the community at large. For example, the decision to have all classes start subclasses at level 3 but the other subclass levels lack standardization, seems to be without community ok. I think they thought the backward compatibility was somehow more marketable. I prefer they instead listened to see what the D&D players wanted.

In the case of the Psion class, it was the community being difficult, and the designers being patient and trying figure out a way to thread the needle. The Psion class is solid, and looks fun to play.

Sometimes a design seems inevitable. There is a difficulty and will resolve in a future design. For example, the six abilities need rethinking, and the bonus of +4 needs to eliminate the score of 18. But if the majority of D&D players arent ready to let go of this archaism, then they arent ready yet. What can designers do?

The game is better when the designers are the servants of the D&D players, rather than the masters.

 

[Yaarel]

As of a few years ago, the majority of people who have ever played D&D started with 5E.

Indeed: he main target audience is people aged 12-24. WotC certainly doesn't mind veteran players, but that's not most players.

Do you know if the 12 to 24 age bracket is filling out the surveys in substantial numbers?

 

[tetrasodium]

I prefer the WotC designers consult with the majority of players when designing products. This democracy sotospeak doesnt always go my way. But the products are more robust and more players either love or can live with these products. If more players are playing then the tradition of gaming stays healthy and passes on to the next generations of gamers.

Rarely, but it seems to happen, the designers did something without consulting the community at large. For example, the decision to have all classes start subclasses at level 3 but the other subclass levels lack standardization, seems to be without community ok. I think they thought the backward compatibility was somehow more marketable. I prefer they instead listened to see what the D&D players wanted.

In the case of the Psion class, it was the community being difficult, and the designers being patient and trying figure out a way to thread the needle. The Psion class is solid, and looks fun to play.

Sometimes a design seems inevitable. There is a difficulty and will resolve in a future design. For example, the six abilities need rethinking, and the bonus of +4 needs to eliminate the score of 18. But if the majority of D&D players arent ready to let go of this archaism, then they arent ready yet. What can designers do?

The game is better when the designers are the servants of the D&D players, rather than the masters.

So is there a point you feel that wotc should consider thinking about gms instead of brazenly ignoring the desires and needs of gms given that just about every table is going to have one GM and multiple players?

Failing to do that is why so many of the 5e issues being discussed in this thread are such a problem. Wotc should decide if they are either going to start supporting GMs or if they would rather start standing in the line of fire by making it explicitly clear that the gm should not be getting heat for making the kinds of changes 5e is designed to expect & require from them.

 

[Parmandur]

Do you know if the 12 to 24 age bracket is filling out the surveys in substantial numbers?

I don't have any idea, but the surveys do ask for age and other demographic information, and people in thst age range have smart phones these days, and rhe Internet.