D&D General Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition

[DEFCON 1]

Said it before and I'll say it again... a "Boss Monster" is a NARRATIVE conceit, not a board game one. If a DM wants and needs a monster to "last a long time in a fight because the fight needs to be dramatic"... then you as a DM have a STORY you are trying to help get across to, with, and for your players. And at that point... there is no reason not to use NARRATIVE methods for keeping the "Boss Monster" alive... rather than continually trying to tweak the board game rules to somehow accomplish it.

The board game rules are not designed to create NARRATIVELY-FULFILLING fights and encounters. They are designed to be what all board games are... two sides playing against each other TRYING TO WIN. To get one side down to zero and removed from the fight. And if that is what you want... encounters where you use the D&D tactical combat rules to try and "win"... then it does not matter how quickly the encounter ends. If you as a party can stun-lock the most powerful monster in the encounter and kill it in a single round or two... then you've done exactly what you wanted and what the rules are designed to do. You've beaten your opponent and won the fight. That's the way the board game has been built to play.

But as soon as you as the DM say "I want the most powerful monster to last at least six rounds, and for at least a couple members of the party to get knocked down to 0 HP and have to come back from that, and for there to be ups and downs in the fight where the players don't know if they are going to win"... in other words you want the encounter to be "more dramatic" or "more memorable"... you are wanting a narrative result. Not a board game one. So stop trying to get that by just using the rules of the board game! Because those rules are not designed to create dramatic results! You might occasionally luck out and get it in spite of itself... but the board game rules will not guarantee it happening. Which means you, as the DM, need to basically cheat. You need to break the rules of the board game here and there to allow the dramatic tension of the encounter to occur in the manner you have in your head of what makes an effective "Boss Monster" encounter.

Just do it. If you want your Boss Monster encounter to play out a certain way so it is dramatically interesting to you and your players... then you rig the game so it does. There is nothing wrong with that! Especially if you can do it in such a way that the players can't tell when you are. "Boss Monster" on its turn fiddles with a ring on its finger to crack it open and suddenly a wash of healing magic flows over them and they regain 50% of its hit points and thus can now last another two rounds in the fight? Huh. Did the "Boss Monster" always have that ring on? Did the DM have that ring listed on their monster sheet statblock as an item at their disposal? Was that merely a "quantum healing ring" that only showed up because the party wailed on the "Boss Monster" so quickly the fight was going to end in a round and a half and thus be massively anti-climactic as a so-called "final fight"? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the DM just pulled that out of their ass to help create the narrative tension in the fight they were hoping for. But it doesn't actually matter. If you are wanting that "final fight" or "Boss Monster" encounter to be narratively interesting and not just a board game fight of "finding out who wins?"... then it's perfectly fine. A narrative action taken to bring about a narrative result.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@DEFCON 1 how do you come to terms with the fact that you as DM are essentially writing a story with all these narrative fingerprints everywhere?

EDIT: To put it another way, in that situation the entire experience for me as DM would feel contrived which would lessen my enjoyment of it all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Last game I set up an encounter just for the PC who was a melee master duellist. Made a big show of having the antagonist challenge the PC to a duel. Did they take up the offer to flex their carefully curated melee build? No they tossed grenades at them because it was more efficient.

Maybe it was but... it was kind of a let down?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game." Paraphrasing.. who was that? Matt Colville maybe?

So this is sort of true, but the phrasing puts the blame on the players whereas I don't think it is their fault.

What is going on is that it is fun to try to play skilfully and trying to come up ways to overcome challenges effectively. Self nerfing is not fun in skilled play paradigm, so one should not expect the players not to choose an optimal solution if such exists. But if there is one optimal way to handle things that is an obvious choice most of the time, then this sort of gameplay breaks. And if such exists, then that is not fault of the players as they did not design the mechanics or the challenges, it is on the rules designer and the GM.

 

[billd91]

@DEFCON 1 how do you come to terms with the fact that you as DM are essentially writing a story with all these narrative fingerprints everywhere?

I would expect that to depend on exactly what you want the narrative elements to be and how far you're willing to intrude. You want the Boss Monster to last 6 or so rounds - then don't give it hit points. It has 6 "points" and one is expended per round of combat as long as the PCs land a telling effect on it (a hit that does damage or a failed save for the Boss) and you make it immune to any save or suck effects that strip it of its actions and only impose something like disadvantage on it.

Making PCs go down for the drama - I'd find that pushing things too far. Chances are a 6 round Boss is probably going to cause at least one to go down naturally (but who knows).

 

[billd91]

So this is sort of true, but the phrasing puts the blame on the players whereas I don't think it is their fault.

What is going on is that it is fun to try to play skilfully and trying to come up ways to overcome challenges effectively. Self nerfing is not fun in skilled play paradigm, so one should not expect the players not to choose an optimal solution if such exists. But if there is one optimal way to handle things that is an obvious choice most of the time, then this sort of gameplay breaks. And if such exists, then that is not fault of the players as they did not design the mechanics or the challenges, it is on the rules designer and the GM.

I don't think things have be raised to broken levels for a player to optimize the fun out of the game, particularly if different PCs tend to play differently. For example, if the scrappy fighter and rogue are enjoying the fight, maybe the wizard should hold off on their highest-level encounter ending spell for a while. Rules and GMing affect pacing of encounters, but so do player decisions and everybody should be aware of how their actions will affect the satisfaction of the other players around the table.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think things have be raised to broken levels for a player to optimize the fun out of the game, particularly if different PCs tend to play differently. For example, if the scrappy fighter and rogue are enjoying the fight, maybe the wizard should hold off on their highest-level encounter ending spell for a while. Rules and GMing affect pacing of encounters, but so do player decisions and everybody should be aware of how their actions will affect the satisfaction of the other players around the table.

So whilst players might need to avoid broken charop combo builds, this is not what we are discussing here. We are talking about using the basic spells in their intended ways. And no, I do not think the players should have to refrain from doing that, and if the game becomes unfun unless they do, then that is a badly designed game. If players need to constantly consider such things it destroys both skilled play and character immersion. We are no longer supposed to do what is smart nor are we supposed to do what the character would do.

 

[the Jester]

Not really because casters would get more slots per day if we stuck to Vancian.

Not necessarily. You could have one slot of each level under a Vancian system.

 

[Horwath]

Last game I set up an encounter just for the PC who was a melee master duellist. Made a big show of having the antagonist challenge the PC to a duel. Did they take up the offer to flex their carefully curated melee build? No they tossed grenades at them because it was more efficient.

Maybe it was but... it was kind of a let down?

 

[Distracted DM]

So this is sort of true, but the phrasing puts the blame on the players whereas I don't think it is their fault.

What is going on is that it is fun to try to play skilfully and trying to come up ways to overcome challenges effectively. Self nerfing is not fun in skilled play paradigm, so one should not expect the players not to choose an optimal solution if such exists. But if there is one optimal way to handle things that is an obvious choice most of the time, then this sort of gameplay breaks. And if such exists, then that is not fault of the players as they did not design the mechanics or the challenges, it is on the rules designer and the GM.

Considering this quote seemingly came out of, was it Sid Meier that someone said? I think it's about both designers and players.

It's saying if the designer allows for it, most players will choose the most direct path to "success," as opposed to a more difficult but satisfying path. And that's probably more acknowledging human nature