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

That's a really weird comparison. I could never imagine ever wanting to play in a game done in that TWD style, unless the game was about building a community over a long period of time, so the individuals weren't the focus.
I have trying to recreate that TWD style of game for decades on and off.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You can't say it's not a game and then expect "If that how they like to spend their time" to be your out. What you are saying there is that they aren't playing a game, and not playing a game is how they like to spend their time.

I'm saying, and I'm correct in this, that they are still playing a game, and that game is how they like to spend their time.

Is a story a game?

How indeed, do you define 'game'.

(PS: I can, I did, I do. ;))
 



As to understanding me correctly, my theory is that WotC intentionally used the term product rather than book to hide the fact that the new PHB did not outsell Tasha’s when it comes to book sales. If they had been able to (also) claim it is the best selling book they would have done so.
They did so! They said exactly that. I reproduced the quote earlier in this thread, in a response to one of your posts:

"Both the new Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide [are] breaking records for the best-selling D&D books ever."
- Chris Cocks, speaking to investors on Hasbro's 2024Q4 earnings call
 


I'm going to guess there is some context missing here, but I'm pretty sure accusations of bigotry over some opinions on game design probably are misplaced lol
Indeed. That’s where I stop wanting to interact or discuss with someone. That’s such a charged word and something that involves real world politics which we try very hard not to do here. Once you pull that term out about a role playing style, that’s where I get off the conversation ride with someone.
 

Ah, interesting that we’re getting back to discussing sales again. I haven’t heard anyone outside of this thread today say WotC is claiming it is the best selling book. I might be wrong about that and I’ll be willing to change my opinion with a cite but all I’ve heard is that it’s the best selling product.
One more time to make it really frigging clear:

"Both the new Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide [are] breaking records for the best-selling D&D books ever." - Chris Cocks, quoted speaking to investors on Hasbro's 2024Q4 earnings call
 

I'll never understand all of the anti-story people.

Play the game how you like of course....but in the end....don't you have a story to tell that you were all part of?

Personally, I'm not anti-story, but I am pro-game.

Every game is potentially a story game. You could play chess and write a narrative based on the game. You could talk about the queen seducing and poisoning the enemy knight, or a bishop attempting to assassinate a king. One underlying assumption to such an idea is that the players would both have to actually want to play chess by the rules. And there's another assumption that anyone taking part in such a game actually enjoys playing chess. But in my ideal version of play, neither chess player is allowed to have their pawn walk past rows of enemy pieces and promote themselves to king, regardless of what anyone wants the story to be.

Of course, in D&D none of these assumptions necessarily hold true. And the playing field of D&D has a lot of gray areas rather than the black and white of a chess board. But I do like a version of the D&D that has a bit more structure, and generally does not sacrifice the "game" for the "story".
 

Only in the end though. Before that, it's just a bunch of stuff that happens. I don't play my PCs with a story to tell, just goals they may or may not accomplish. Just like real life.
It's the stuff happening as dictated by the outcome of the rules/dice rolls/etc. that generates the story.
Is waiting for the game notes to be "published" as it were what makes it a story?

I'm absolutely not saying that anyone is wrong for disagreeing with me that the playing of the game is a story. I just don't understand the sentiment. It often comes off as semantic distinction.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top