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

...maybe you're reading it wrong.

Unless he's come back and clarified what exactly he meant?
you're doing it wrong... when it's convenient for your narrative take exactly what was posted at face value and demandit of others... then when it's not convenient for your narrative choose to interpret what he posted and demand others interpret it as you do... :rolleyes:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

you're doing it wrong... when it's convenient for your narrative take exactly what was posted at face value and demandit of others... then when it's not convenient for your narrative choose to interpret what he posted and demand others interpret it as you do... :rolleyes:
how much would you bet on if Mike were to clarify this that the clarification will be along the lines of ‘of course I meant the DM should try their best to TPK the party’ rather than ‘that is not at all what I meant, the DM should try to provide a decent challenge’?
 

I remember fighting with my brother over how he played with the Nintendo.

I, rightfully of course, took my gaming very seriously. I would increase the difficulty when I could, figure out how to play well, and defeat the game.

He would then come around, and plug in his Game Genie, and completely invalidate the game by cheating.

A game without challenge, is a waste of time. We came to blows over it several times as kids and brothers often will, until he got too big and the fights got too potentially damaging.

If someone enjoys a game without challenge then they are playing it right. For them. I wouldn't want that, but I don't tell anyone else they're wasting their time if they don't do it the way I do it. I certainly wouldn't come to blows over it unless they're somehow affecting my game.
 

If someone enjoys a game without challenge then they are playing it right. For them. I wouldn't want that, but I don't tell anyone else they're wasting their time if they don't do it the way I do it. I certainly wouldn't come to blows over it unless they're somehow affecting my game.

Well clearly you didnt fight with your brothers over stupid naughty word as a kid. :LOL:
 

you're doing it wrong... when it's convenient for your narrative take exactly what was posted at face value and demandit of others... then when it's not convenient for your narrative choose to interpret what he posted and demand others interpret it as you do... :rolleyes:
Doesn't everyone do that? No one is objective.
 

He said this:


(emphasis mine)

For many people, including myself, that bolded bit is being a jerk. It's adversarial, bizarrely so.

Yes, a good GM can and should provide opponents, risks, and stakes, as you say, but only to the point that it makes sense within the context of the story, plot, or environment. Your anecdote, about the ghouls, seems to do that. The players made a choice and that choice had consequences. I assume that if they didn't ignore the hook, they would have stopped or at least very much slowed the spread of the ghouls. Yes?

What Mearls said, though, sounds more like actively punishing the players. Maybe it's not what he meant, but it's what he said: the game's mechanics should be about defeating or foiling the players. Not about consequences (consequences are neutral, not punitive), not about providing challenges (either "level appropriate" or not), but about actively holding the players back. And since he hasn't come back to clarify, that's all we know: he thinks games should defeat and foil players, not work with them.

And again, his example was killing three PCs at a con game, thus rallying the survivors. He doesn't talk about doing this in a home game with players who have developed their characters over many sessions. You can't compare the two at all.
I wouldn't characterize this playstyle as the DM being a jerk . . . assuming that all players at the table are operating under the same assumptions . . . but it is definitely adversarial and not the "true way" (or only way) of playing D&D . . . regardless of location (con, home) or decade (70s, 80s, today).

I agree that Mearls posts about this game come across poorly . . .
 

I doubt I am, as I said, any DM can TPK the party, Mike knows that. So the advice is not ‘the DM should try to wipe out the characters’, because the DM actually trying that means the DM will succeed at it. Context people…
No, here is his advice:

"If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players. A good system enables that by moving questions of success or failure to a die roll or some other disinterested mechanic rather than relying solely on GM fiat (though fiat has a very useful place in TTRPGs as a whole)."

The GM should defeat the players; a good game should have defeating the players be part of the rules rather than only having it be up to the DM.

And the only example he gave was killing three players in one turn.

It wasn't "the players had to work hard to get past traps and riddles." It wasn't "the players had a very difficult fight against the BBEG and its minions." It wasn't "the players had tough but fair fights against some monsters." It was "three PCs got decapitated in a single turn because I, the GM, somehow managed to roll really well three times in a single turn."

Do you have another definition for the words "defeat" and "foil" that makes sense in context with "decapitating three PCs in a single turn"?

(Also: even if this is a game where you need an 18 or higher to hit, how likely is it that someone will roll that three times in a single turn? Was this using the 1e rules (I just looked it up) where you needed to roll a 20 or higher, but it didn't need to be a natural 20 because you could add the sword's +3 bonus, and Mearls was maybe also adding in additional bonuses, like for high Strength? If so, and he was using the game he's been developing on patreon, then I hope that he took notes because his sword feels quite OP.

(And let me point out that giving a weapon of that power level to an NPC is GM fiat. Unless this was purely a playtest in his mind.)
 

you're doing it wrong... when it's convenient for your narrative take exactly what was posted at face value and demandit of others... then when it's not convenient for your narrative choose to interpret what he posted and demand others interpret it as you do... :rolleyes:
What? What did I choose to not interpret because it's not convenient?

Also, shouldn't you be complaining to Mambo that they're demanding others interpret Mearls' words the way they do? Or is that OK because it follows your narrative?
 

I wouldn't characterize this playstyle as the DM being a jerk . . . assuming that all players at the table are operating under the same assumptions . . . but it is definitely adversarial and not the "true way" (or only way) of playing D&D . . . regardless of location (con, home) or decade (70s, 80s, today).

I agree that Mearls posts about this game come across poorly . . .
Well, that's why in this case, I said "for many players."
 

(And let me point out that giving a weapon of that power level to an NPC is GM fiat. Unless this was purely a playtest in his mind.)

The only Vorpal Weapon in Shadowdark, is on an NPC by default.

"If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players. A good system enables that by moving questions of success or failure to a die roll or some other disinterested mechanic rather than relying solely on GM fiat (though fiat has a very useful place in TTRPGs as a whole)."

Yes, the goal should be to put up obstacles, that introduce the potential of defeat. To 'foil' the players efforts.

1743015472275.png


Then, a 'good system' in his eyes, moves the question of success or failure, to the die roll or some other mechanic rather than relying solely on the GM.

All of this stuff should be self explanatory from a game design, and also social contract, perspective.

Are there assumptions being made? Yes. Is any of this wrong? No.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top