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

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.

 

[AlViking]

No. He didn't describe that at all. The entire point of his post wasn't that you should kill off PCs or run an adversarial game, it was that he made an observation that the groups that did get unlucky rallied around that adversity and used it as incentive, rather than let it get them down.

I haven't run a Gygaxian style game since 2e, but I still have observed since then that players like to be challenged. They like overcoming the adversity that challenges represent. Why? Because then the victory over the situation actually means something.

Many, if not most of the best stories my players talk about, and that I've heard strangers talk about, are those stories when they are fighting the BBEG and everyone in the party is down except for that one last PC who is on his last leg and will drop if he doesn't hit/crit/roll a 20, etc. and he does it. Those situations are the ones that make the best memories and stories. I've never heard someone talk about how 6 years ago they curb stomped the BBEG without taking much damage.

I agree it was just his opinion. Like pretty much everything else we post. His opinions include that playing a game in a different style than what he's discussing is "a time-wasting slop" and he made no effort to clarify that statement. It's not that he was running a 1-shot deadly game, that's fine if people knew what they were signing up for. But what he doubles down on is "If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players." It's the very definition of adversarial GMing, which is fine if that's what you want I just don't think it's universally better.

All of which, of course, is just my opinion.

 

[KYRON45]

No! Only someone else's clearly worded opinion stating what he personally thinks about the game can do that for you.

Okay, okay, Yes, you do get to decide that for your game and Mike didn't say or imply otherwise.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"...Bill something.

 

[darjr]

Characters can die in a game that isn’t adversarial.

 

[darjr]

I talked to many of the folks in that game and they had a fantastic time. It was a tournament with pregens. It was understood that characters can and probably will die. From retelling he did a great job telegraphing and working with his players to have a great time.

I didn’t attend Founders and Legends this year, because it was too different from last years, I now wish I had.

 

[Imaro]

He said that as an opinion, not a statement of fact. His statement, which is all three of the paragraphs from that day, started with, "Because I'm at Gary Con and feeling salty - I think the idea..."

And? People are claiming he's being mis-characterized... so I say if so he should clarify (anyone can feel free to agree or disagree with that)....and yes, the entire post is about what he thinks... not sure your point here unless you think I don't realize it's all oppinions.... or maybe you feel I don't have the right to disagree with an oppinion?

He can have that opinion. We are all entitled to opinions, even prominent figures in the industry. You can choose to ignore that he was simply stating his opinion, or you can choose to think he was engaging in One True Wayism. That's up to you, but he has no responsibility to make sure the message was received correctly, because he already did when he put in the "I think" to clearly indicate that it was just a personal opinion.

Who said he couldn't have an oppinion or that anyone had to be quiet and accept it without commentary? And you keep bringing up "responsibility" but you're the only one using that word.

Also, he isn't speaking about playstyles at all, but rather about the design of the game itself. The game doesn't dictate playstyle, as that's up to the individual groups who play the game.

Wait, what... The game's mechanis influence and even dictate playstyles through the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree it was just his opinion. Like pretty much everything else we post. His opinions include that playing a game in a different style than what he's discussing is "a time-wasting slop" and he made no effort to clarify that statement. It's not that he was running a 1-shot deadly game, that's fine if people knew what they were signing up for. But what he doubles down on is "If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players." It's the very definition of adversarial GMing, which is fine if that's what you want I just don't think it's universally better.

All of which, of course, is just my opinion.

He doesn't have to clarify that statement. That's his opinion of a game that makes it too easy to overcome obstacles. It was harshly said and I wouldn't have worded it like that, but it's not the big deal that folks are making it out to be.

So what if he thinks the game is like that? Do you? Only your opinion about the game you play should really matter to you.

Personally, I both agree and disagree with Mearls on this. I do also hold the opinion that 5e is too easy and that challenge, including the risk of death or failure are what make the game fun, but I don't agree that 5e is time wasting slop. There are a lot of good things about 5e and with a few house rules, you can get rid of a lot of the things that make it too easy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wait, what... The game's mechanis influence and even dictate playstyles through the rules.

For some games (especially a lot of narrative-focused games), certainly. In my experience the closest any version of official D&D has come to dictating playstyle was 4e (and more power to it for taking a side). Maybe OD&D.

 

[Maxperson]

And? People are claiming he's being mis-characterized... so I say if so he should clarify (anyone can feel free to agree or disagree with that)....and yes, the entire post is about what he thinks... not sure your point here unless you think I don't realize it's all oppinions.... or maybe you feel I don't have the right to disagree with an oppinion?

The point is that as an opinion, it's not One True Wayism. He isn't saying you are wrong for playing your way. He isn't even talking about playstyle at all.

Mike shouldn't have to come clarify for folks who are blatantly misinterpreting something that clearly isn't saying what they think it does. There will always be a group of people who do that, and you need to just let them complain and ignore them, because if you don't, you will be spending all of your time "clarifying" to them or another group that gets upset at the clarification.

Wait, what... The game's mechanis influence and even dictate playstyles through the rules.

Not D&D. I can pick pretty much any playstyle and play D&D using it with no or minor modifications to the rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

He doesn't have to clarify that statement. That's his opinion of a game that makes it too easy to overcome obstacles. It was harshly said and I wouldn't have worded it like that, but it's not the big deal that folks are making it out to be.

So what if he thinks the game is like that? Do you? Only your opinion about the game you play should really matter to you.

Personally, I both agree and disagree with Mearls on this. I do also hold the opinion that 5e is too easy and that challenge, including the risk of death or failure are what make the game fun, but I don't agree that 5e is time wasting slop. There are a lot of good things about 5e and with a few house rules, you can get rid of a lot of the things that make it too easy.

My own version of 5e is dedicated to that very purpose.

 

[AlViking]

I talked to many of the folks in that game and they had a fantastic time. It was a tournament with pregens. It was understood that characters can and probably will die. From retelling he did a great job telegraphing and working with his players to have a great time.

I didn’t attend Founders and Legends this year, because it was too different from last years, I now wish I had.

I've played and enjoyed killer 1-shot games at cons. That's not the point. It's that this is being held up as a gold standard and example of what a "good" game is. A 1-shot is completely different from an ongoing campaign and has little bearing on what I enjoy from a longer term game. There are plenty of games out there where characters die left and right, that doesn't make them better or worse than other games.