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'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.
i agree with your last statement, but i don’t think he’s being one true wayism, just opinionated.

I will go on to say, that at least for me, I prefer campaigns that are just as deadly for PCs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

Not D&D. I can pick pretty much any playstyle and play D&D using it with no or minor modifications to the rules.
Yup. It's all about ego. Some people just have a hard time accepting that someone who has prominence in the game space they are in might not care about the game in the exact same way they do and it makes them feel bad.

See: every person on EN World who gets pissy when Jeremy et. al. design game rules for D&D that don't push the game in the direction they'd prefer it to go.
 

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.
Using the rules of D&D 3e can I play a game where players have narrative control over the emerging story? If so what rules facilitate that playstyle?
 


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.

Yes he is talking about playstyle.

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.

He doesn't have too and no one I'd gong to make him... so again, what is your point... to shut down others voicing their oppinions while defending his?

Not D&D. I can pick pretty much any playstyle and play D&D using it with no or minor modifications to the rules.
If you are adding rules... you need thos rules to facilitate said playstyle. Otherwise why add them?
 

Even if someone insists that the way you are playing is wrong....it's ok, because they aren't arbiter of all that is.

Someone said something that you disagree with and it got under your skin. That's fine. But now to insist that they clarify what they mean....that seems like you are telling them what to think.

Let's be careful with that line of thought.
 

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
no it is not, he is absolutely correct that it is the DM’s job to challenge the players and throw obstacles in their way, otherwise the adventure is the players strolling through a park and feeding the squirrels. In no way does that mean the DM is adversarial
 

no it is not, he is absolutely correct that it is the DM’s job to challenge the players and throw obstacles in their way, otherwise the adventure is the players strolling through a park and feeding the squirrels. In no way does that mean the DM is adversarial
And even here y’all can also disagree. Sometimes I think strolling through the park feeding squirrels is all I ever want to do.
 

where did Mearls or me say anything to the contrary? If you however think you can make a game without stakes interesting then I’d like to know how you think you do that
You have a tendency to truncate quotes.
First we would have to have guidelines on what kind of stakes. Are we talking about PC death? Are we talking about PCs never failing any kind of check (including to hit rolls) ever? I'm confident that i could run a game with no stakes at all....it would be (for me) boring and i'd never want to play that way again.
 

Using the rules of D&D 3e can I play a game where players have narrative control over the emerging story? If so what rules facilitate that playstyle?
Dictating playstyle is different then not being suited for a particular playstyle. "Non-Narrative" is not a playstyle.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top