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.

 

[Scribe]

There are more games out there than D&D5e, you know.

Absolutely, thankfully.

So in your mind, the only options are a constant threat of random death, or a cakewake. And the only thing that is interesting to you are the constant threat of death and other random events. Gotcha.

This does suggest that, if Mearls had not rolled well enough to decapitate three people, then you're saying that the game would be unmemorable and not noteworthy. No matter what else went on, if it wasn't for him randomly decapitating three NPCs in a round, the game would be a yawnfest.

That doesn't speak well of... well, anything, really. Not what you think his games are like, not what your games are like.

No, I never said that there is only 2 extremes, and without clear and present RNG death at every bend, the game is unplayable.

I know its easy to take the most uncharitable view of a given post to continue operation of the outrage machine, but no, thats not what I said.

However, yes, random events ARE more memorable, because they are unlikely. You dont remember all the checks you make that were on the average roll, you remember the ones outside the norm.

 

[Faolyn]

Clearly? Or when he has tried it at his tables that is what it was like for him. Without him specifically saying it is someone else's game and the fact he was speaking to his games it is up to the reader to either take the words as written, or read into them what the reader chooses.

Lots of reading into vibes in this thread.

OK. Let's say he was talking about a game he ran. Heck, you can even go so far as to say he was talking about a game he both ran and created, so the only person he's insulting is himself.

He's still kinda saying that any game that doesn't have at least a decent chance of killing PCs is worthless slop, which is pretty insulting to players who don't want that risk because they have a vision for their character or who thinks roleplay is more important than combat, to anyone who has played in or written a game where death is cheap because of magic or superscience (which is a lot of games, including D&D--and I don't just mean 5e), and to anyone who's written or played a game where death is a condition that has to be agreed upon by both player and GM.

 

[Maxperson]

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 . . .

It's not adversarial if you take all of his paragraphs in context. He even said that a good system enables the kind of play he's talking about by having disinterested systems to use. Disinterested systems oppose adversarial DMing.

 

[AlViking]

So we are supposed to take away that Mearls post on social media about how much fun they had playing a "Gygaxian" style game he played at Garycon is how we should all be playing our games, or that is the only style of game he plays?

Shouldn't we just let it be him talking about how he and those that played the game(s) enjoyed themselves?

Not every social media post is a binary praise/attack on everyone that hears about the post.

I'm just repeating his words. The GM's only goal is to defeat or foil the player's plans and that's what the rules should support. Anything is time-wasting slop.

I don't know what he does in other cases and don't really care, I'm simply responding to the statements he has made that I disagree with.

 

[Scribe]

I mean flip the script. If someone said 'death has to be off the table, its not a good game otherwise' would I be upset?

Negative. I would laugh at such a misguided opinion, chalk it up to one more failure of our society, and move on with a game that is actually good.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

OK. Let's say he was talking about a game he ran. Heck, you can even go so far as to say he was talking about a game he both ran and created, so the only person he's insulting is himself.

He's still kinda saying that any game that doesn't have at least a decent chance of killing PCs is worthless slop, which is pretty insulting to players who don't want that risk because they have a vision for their character or who thinks roleplay is more important than combat, to anyone who has played in or written a game where death is cheap because of magic or superscience (which is a lot of games, including D&D--and I don't just mean 5e), and to anyone who's written or played a game where death is a condition that has to be agreed upon by both player and GM.

Is it anymore insulting than a fan of a different sports tem than you saying the team you like sucks?
It is an opinion and people are both allowed to have and express them. You are the onlyone in control of your interpretation and reaction.

 

[Faolyn]

Absolutely, thankfully.



No, I never said that there is only 2 extremes, and without clear and present RNG death at every bend, the game is unplayable.

You said that is what is actually enjoyable.

Maybe you meant to say "that is one of the things I find enjoyable" and wrote it as a given absolute by accident.

I know its easy to take the most uncharitable view of a given post to continue operation of the outrage machine, but no, thats not what I said.

However, yes, random events ARE more memorable, because they are unlikely. You dont remember all the checks you make that were on the average roll, you remember the ones outside the norm.

I also remember the moments of roleplaying that had nothing to do with dice. I tend to remember more of those, because they were more meaningful than a die roll.

 

[Maxperson]

Is it anymore insulting than a fan of a different sports tem than you saying the team you like sucks?
It is an opinion and people are both allowed to have and express them. You are the onlyone in control of your interpretation and reaction.

He didn't even say death had to be on the table. He said there should be a chance of death OR failure. That "or failure" means that death can be off the table and the game can rely on failure.

 

[Faolyn]

Is it anymore insulting than a fan of a different sports tem than you saying the team you like sucks?
It is an opinion and people are both allowed to have and express them. You are the onlyone in control of your interpretation and reaction.

That would be nice if people didn't constantly appeal to authority and are willing to say "a famous game designer says this sucks!"

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I'm just repeating his words. The GM's only goal is to defeat or foil the player's plans and that's what the rules should support. Anything is time-wasting slop.

I don't know what he does in other cases and don't really care, I'm simply responding to the statements he has made that I disagree with.

It is more than repeating the words, it is you adding your interpretation and bias to them and representing them so they support your argument.

Which you are well within your rights to do, I am just pointing out there are other ways to interpret the post.