WotC Mike Mearls: "D&D Is Uncool Again"

Monster_Manual_Traditional_Cover_Art_copy.webp


In Mike Mearls' recent interview with Ben Riggs, he talks about how he feels that Dungeons & Dragons has had its moment, and is now uncool again. Mearls was one of the lead designers of D&D 5E and became the franchise's Creative Director in 2018. He worked at WotC until he was laid off in 2023. He is now EP of roleplaying games at Chaosium, the publisher of Call of Chulhu.

My theory is that when you look back at the OGL, the real impact of it is that it made D&D uncool again. D&D was cool, right? You had Joe Manganiello and people like that openly talking about playing D&D. D&D was something that was interesting, creative, fun, and different. And I think what the OGL did was take that concept—that Wizards and this idea of creativity that is inherent in the D&D brand because it's a roleplaying game, and I think those two things were sundered. And I don’t know if you can ever put them back together.

I think, essentially, it’s like that phrase: The Mandate of Heaven. I think fundamentally what happened was that Wizards has lost the Mandate of Heaven—and I don’t see them even trying to get it back.

What I find fascinating is that it was Charlie Hall who wrote that article. This is the same Charlie Hall who wrote glowing reviews of the 5.5 rulebooks. And then, at the same time, he’s now writing, "This is your chance because D&D seems to be stumbling." How do you square that? How do I go out and say, "Here are the two new Star Wars movies. They’re the best, the most amazing, the greatest Star Wars movies ever made. By the way, Star Wars has never been weaker. Now is the time for other sci-fi properties", like, to me that doesn’t make any sense! To me, it’s a context thing again.

Maybe this is the best Player’s Handbook ever written—but the vibes, the audience, the people playing these games—they don’t seem excited about it. We’re not seeing a groundswell of support and excitement. Where are the third-party products? That’s what I'd ask. Because that's what you’d think, "oh, there’s a gap", I mean remember before the OGL even came up, back when 3.0 launched, White Wolf had a monster book. There were multiple adventures at Gen Con. The license wasn’t even official yet, and there were already adventures showing up in stores. We're not seeing that, what’s ostensibly the new standard going forward? If anything, we’re seeing the opposite—creators are running in the opposite direction. I mean, that’s where I’m going.

And hey—to plug my Patreon—patreon.com/mikemearls (one word). This time last year, when I was looking at my post-Wizards options, I thought, "Well, maybe I could start doing 5E-compatible stuff." And now what I’m finding is…I just don’t want to. Like—it just seems boring. It’s like trying to start a hair metal band in 1992. Like—No, no, no. Everyone’s mopey and we're wearing flannel. It's Seattle and rain. It’s Nirvana now, man. It’s not like Poison. And that’s the vibe I get right now, yeah, Poison was still releasing albums in the ’90s. They were still selling hundreds of thousands or a million copies. But they didn’t have any of the energy. It's moved on. But what’s interesting to me is that roleplaying game culture is still there. And that’s what I find fascinating about gaming in general—especially TTRPGs. I don’t think we’ve ever had a period where TTRPGs were flourishing, and had a lot of energy and excitement around them, and D&D wasn’t on the upswing. Because I do think that’s what’s happening now. We’re in very strange waters where I think D&D is now uncool.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm probably one of the handful of people that played some of the original TSR versions of the product but I've never really cared much for treating characters as disposable.
same

There are many ways for characters to fail and removing any chance to continue playing a character is one of the most boring options there is.
Mearls is not talking about character death specifically but about a ‘sense of risk’ ‘Whether it is a dead character or failure’

That last post of his "Whether it's a dead character or failure in whatever context the session presents, the bigger the threat, the more meaning the play has to us emotionally and spiritually. Removing it from the game turns it into time-wasting slop." Is just one WTF after another for me.
Occasionally people even play the game for fun, but according to Mearls that apparently is just a waste of time.
Fun and emotion in a not insignificant part come from the stakes and the stakes only exist if there is risk

Maybe it is the participation trophy that gets people riled up, but I would agree that without (perceived) risk the game is not all that interesting
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Fun and emotion in a not insignificant part come from the stakes and the stakes only exist if there is risk
Huh? Fun and emotion can come in a variety of different forms and not all fun or emotional investment is tied to stakes and risk... otherwise why not just play high stake casino games vs. Ttrpg's.


Maybe it is the participation trophy that gets people riled up, but I would agree that without (perceived) risk the game is not all that interesting
No its the smug and frankly arrogant attitude that somehow you (general, Mearls or even you with this comment) know best what makes a game interesting or engaging for everyone. And the insinuation that one type of fun is somehow superior to other types.
 

Agreed, I was a backer on patreon and dropped it recently for the tone and doom and gloom messaging.
This is just one of the myriad of downsides of social media. People spend an inordinate amount of time delving way too deep into things they want to maintain a connection to... and when one does that it invariably leads to the realization that other people are indeed different people. There is a 100% chance that anyone one "follows" is going to eventually have an opinion that (general) you disagree with. And for whatever reason, people seem to put way, way, WAY too much personal stock in that.

In my opinion there is something to be said in just not caring or listening to what any designer has to say and instead just waiting and then perking up one's ears only when the product gets released. Then at that point you look at it, decide if you want to buy it, and then do or don't. And then after that not giving a flying crap about anything the designer does or does not do afterwards. Transaction over... relationship to the person over.
 

This is just one of the myriad of downsides of social media. People spend an inordinate amount of time delving way too deep into things they want to maintain a connection to... and when one does that it invariably leads to the realization that other people are indeed different people. There is a 100% chance that anyone one "follows" is going to eventually have an opinion that (general) you disagree with. And for whatever reason, people seem to put way, way, WAY too much personal stock in that.

In my opinion there is something to be said in just not caring or listening to what any designer has to say and instead just waiting and then perking up one's ears only when the product gets released. Then at that point you look at it, decide if you want to buy it, and then do or don't. And then after that not giving a flying crap about anything the designer does or does not do afterwards. Transaction over... relationship to the person over.
It's one reason sports is harder and harder for me to watch. I know what some of those people think/believe.....
 

I’m sure I’ll check it out when it eventually comes out from Mike as it’s been overall decent in design. A good 60% I Iike, but less than the 70% wotc shoots for :)

Edited to show70%, rather than the 80% I originally typed :)
 
Last edited:

same


Mearls is not talking about character death specifically but about a ‘sense of risk’ ‘Whether it is a dead character or failure’



Fun and emotion in a not insignificant part come from the stakes and the stakes only exist if there is risk

Maybe it is the participation trophy that gets people riled up, but I would agree that without (perceived) risk the game is not all that interesting

So if anyone plays a game where character death is off the table they're playing it wrong? If you wouldn't play a game where permanent death of a character was never going to happen that's fine. We all have our preferences. But he is making broad statements that apply not just to his table, he applies to an entire categories of players. Sometimes major failures can be a rewarding part of the game for me but I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know what's rewarding for other people.

I would also add that it's obvious he thought this through since he posted it to X but not Bluesky.
 


Huh? Fun and emotion can come in a variety of different forms and not all fun or emotional investment is tied to stakes and risk... otherwise why not just play high stake casino games vs. Ttrpg's.
I see no otherwise there, basically all games are about there being some risk of losing, casino, board, TTRPG…
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top