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

Once again, I disagree. To me the goal of a GM is to create an interesting world to interact with. The other NPCs and monsters may be interested in defeating the character's plans or they may be interested in aiding them or maybe they're neutral and can go either way depending on the deeds and words of the characters.
At no point does Mearls say that every monster and NPC always has to be antagonistic. All he is saying is that some of them should give you a hard time, so the above is not you disagreeing with him
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Tell you what: I’ll give you a participation trophy if you can go back to his original tweets and find the word “challenge.”
I don't need to, it's not in there. What is in there is 'risk' and 'failure in whatever context the session presents', as opposed to 'dead character' which was an alternative to failure. So stop pretending that he is talking about the DM being supposed to kill characters left and right
 

At no point does Mearls say that every monster and NPC always has to be antagonistic. All he is saying is that some of them should give you a hard time, so the above is not you disagreeing with him

I don't get why you feel compelled to defend of what he stated or to misrepresent what I was saying. Obviously he never stated anything about every monster or NPC, I was talking about my opinion of the GM's responsibility. His goal for the GM? "The GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players".

Maybe that's not what he is really means but I am not going to put words into his mouth to make it sound like he said something I would agree with. I personally do not like the approach as stated in these posts. It does not matter what else he may or may not think, I am talking about what he posted, nothing more nothing less. He responded on this forum and had plenty of opportunity to add some nuance and he did not.
 

I don't need to, it's not in there. What is in there is 'risk' and 'failure in whatever context the session presents', as opposed to 'dead character' which was an alternative to failure. So stop pretending that he is talking about the DM being supposed to kill characters left and right

Sorry, don’t understand your point, Mamba.
 



Sorry, don’t understand your point, Mamba.
I am saying the word 'challenge' is not in the posts, but it just is another way to say 'risk' or '(possibility of) failure' which are in there, and failure is not the same as 'character death', it is a separate option in the posts.

Mearls is not talking about a need to kill characters to make the game interesting, providing a challenge is enough
 
Last edited:


I don't get why you feel compelled to defend of what he stated or to misrepresent what I was saying.
not sure where I misrepresented what you said. As to defending him, because I do not like the misinformation I see in here about what he wrote, plain and simple.

Obviously he never stated anything about every monster or NPC, I was talking about my opinion of the GM's responsibility.
then I am not sure where you disagree with him in your post, because that part is what followed your 'I disagree' and sounded like the explanation for it

His goal for the GM? "The GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players".
yes, and? Is that the goal of the BBEG, I'd say it should be. Does that mean the BBEG always wins, no

Maybe that's not what he is really means but I am not going to put words into his mouth to make it sound like he said something I would agree with.
instead you take things literally, ignoring the context and that doing so arrives at a nonsensical interpretation / conclusion. As we both know (and so does Mearls), if the DM truly were intent on foiling the players, there is nothing they could do to stop it. So whatever he might mean by this, it is not the literal interpretation you are using
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top