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.

 

[Staffan]

Don't give Hasbro any ides.

CANDYLAND: The RPG!!!

Dimension 20 - Dropout

Heed the call of adventure and enter Dimension 20, where Game Master Brennan Lee Mulligan, joined by comedians and pro gamers, blends comedy with tabletop RPGs.

www.dropout.tv

 

[Faolyn]

Mearls is a gamer, who also just happens to be a designer. He's also very accessible, if you go to conventions or hang out here, so you can even ask him yourself.

What a lot of us are using to interpret his meaning is context. Context from conversations, blogs, posts, and even games he's designed.

If you're familiar with roleplaying games, let's say D&D 5e in particular (a game he did some work on), you can see what he's talking about. As a GM, I create the world with the help of the tools he helped design. The players create their characters with the tools he helped design. Depending on your GM's style, some potential goals are presented to the PCs or the PCs come up with their own goals. The adventure begins...

The PCs encounter obstacles that the GM creates using tools Mearls helped design. Some of those obstacles are monsters and NPCs who have tactics and powers. The PCs also have special abilities that he helped design. The GM uses the tactics and powers of the monsters while the PCs use tactics and powers. The GM's goal (while running the monsters) is to defeat the PCs, while the PC's goal is to defeat/overcome the monsters, all done while using the disinterested dice.

If my goal as a GM wasn't to defeat the PCs, then the pack of gnolls would just stand there and do nothing besides hand out XP and treasure. We might as well be playing Candyland.

See, here's where you (both you specifically and you generically) are confusing some words.

For me, personally, my goal as a GM isn't to defeat the PCs. Even without GM fiat, it's really simple to use even a PC-friendly system like 5e to kill the PCs. Don't let the PCs get a long rest by bombarding them with disruptive monster attacks in the night. Don't let the PCs actually be able to get close to the monsters; give the monsters long-range attacks and have them fight from locations the PCs can't get to, like the air. Or have monsters attack the PCs when they have no ability to move around, like when they're climbing up a cliff. Give monsters class levels and abilities. Tucker's Kobolds showed how deadly even minor monsters could be if run cleverly, and in 5e, bounded accuracy means that those kobolds would still be dangerous at higher levels.

Or, as with Mearls' post, give the foe a vorpal sword, a minimum of three attacks in one turn, and have them presumably make three exceptionally good die rolls in that one turn.

So my goal as a GM isn't to defeat the PCs, because that's simple, but to provide fun challenges. That's the difference between a defeat and a challenge--defeat means to end, to destroy, to beat. But with a challenge, success is also a possibility. And don't forget, what Mearls said made that con game so good is the terrible setbacks the PCs dealt with, specifically decapitating three PCs in a single turn, with presumably no defense or save against it. In other words, by GM fiat (since he gave the foe the sword in the first place), the thing he said a system should try to replace.

My gnolls aren't going to just stand there handing out XP[1]; they're going to act as intelligently as they're capable of, because they want to survive. But that's not the same thing as me wanting to defeat the players because that's the primary or only way to make the game interesting, exciting, or memorable. And me not wanting to defeat the players also opens up other possibilities, such as the players deciding to try negotiating.[2]

[1] Not that anyone at my table wants XP for killing; we all hate that. We do milestone/story progression for D&D.
[2] My table hates gnolls as demonic murder-machines, and we also hate also-evil races, which means if gnolls are attacking, they have a reason. But that's besides the point; I'm including this note to avoid gnoll-related tangents.

As a note, I find this whole thing really funny because it started simply because I said that I found removing the constant threat of death (my D&D party has a grave cleric, hence ranged spare the dying) made me more willing to take risks and do cooler things, since I don't have to constantly play conservatively out of fear of perma-death. Whereas Mearls, and some other people on this thread, find that sort of play to be a waste of time. Or as Scribe said--hopefully a joke--a "failure of society."

As another note, I shouldn't have to read an entire person's body of works to "interpret" what he's saying. Mearl is an accomplished writer, which means he should know how to write clearly. And I'm not talking about his tweet, which allows for a very limited number of characters. I'm talking about his post in this thread, on page 100.

 

[Bae'zel]

For me, personally, my goal as a GM isn't to defeat the PCs.

Same: I'm there to present challenges and obstacles to overcome. Setting DCs for checks. Without any opposition, there's no conflict and it's hardly a game anymore.

Which is why I'm not terribly interested in some of those more 'laid back' RPGs about starting a fantasy café, or a game about having picnics. Nothing wrong with that, but there's a reason why even the most basic children's shows and books have SOME kind of conflict ("I want all of the cookies but Daniel Tiger wants me to share!").

Maybe that's what Mearls meant? That the DM is the one who creates conflict for the PCs to bounce off of.

EDIT for clarity: I'm not there to defeat the players, but to present challenges so that they can use their cool abilities and powers on something active.

 

[CellarHeroes]

My gnolls aren't going to just stand there handing out XP[1]; they're going to act as intelligently as they're capable of, because they want to survive. But that's not the same thing as me wanting to defeat the players because that's the primary or only way to make the game interesting, exciting, or memorable. And me not wanting to defeat the players also opens up other possibilities, such as the players deciding to try negotiating.[2]

[1] Not that anyone at my table wants XP for killing; we all hate that. We do milestone/story progression for D&D.
[2] My table hates gnolls as demonic murder-machines, and we also hate also-evil races, which means if gnolls are attacking, they have a reason. But that's besides the point; I'm including this note to avoid gnoll-related tangents.

I'm pointing this snippet out just because we're both on the same page of different editions of a book. Also, to enforce your avoidance of gnoll-related tangents, I only used gnolls in the example because they happened to be fresh in my mind from an adventure I was reading last night.

As GMs we are controlling those monsters, using the rules provided for them and adhering to those rules. When we try to "defeat" the PCs, we are playing those monsters exactly as you pointed out "intelligently" and "capable". We're not pulling punches or fudging dice rolls. It's those funny-shaped dice that are getting in our way.

I consider myself as the type of GM he's referring to as having the goal to defeat the PCs. If we're in a situation and the PCs have opened an opportunity for the monsters to get the upper-hand, I will absolutely take it. When the monsters are in position to strike, I am praying (yes, seriously muttering under my breath) that the roll is unsuccessful, especially if it would do serious harm.

 

[mearls]

Just popping in to say I have had a very busy week, but am trying to keep up with the discussion and will reply when I finally have time.

 

[Faolyn]

i.e. that the game system should work towards defeating the players. I assumed the quote with the highlighted part was self-explanatory enough

Yes, it's quite self-explanatory that he thinks that the GM and system should be working to defeat the players. Because I read the rest of that post and actually took that line in context.

but I guess not, so here is some more info... If the game uses disinterested mechanics, then it is not working towards foiling the players, it is essentially neutral and simply working towards an outcome, ideally one the group considers fair and probable given the inputs. In any case, it is not working against the players, which was your claim

Ah, so here I learn that you're the type who takes only tiny parts of a greater whole and nitpicks about them.

For instance, here you are trying to highlight "disinterested mechanic" while ignoring what he said the GM's goal should be and everything else I wrote in my prior posts. I'll copypaste again. So assume a disinterested mechanic, and the only GM fiat is giving a foe three attacks per round and an instakill weapon.

And his only example in this post is killing three PCs in one round. Let's actually look at that. In the systems I'm aware of, you need a really high roll (natural or modified) to be able to decapitate someone. Possibilities:

1. He rolled really well: This is luck and has nothing to do with either the system or GM fiat. His premise fails.
2. He cheated to make things dramatic: This is GM fiat, and an expletive-deleted move on his part. His premise fails.
3. The system is written in such a way that the wielder can choose when to decapitate on any hit, say, 3/day. This is GM fiat, unless the system is also written to allow the target a defense against it. His premise possibly succeeds, but is quite likely OP unless there's a defense.

None of these things are evidence of a disinterested mechanic (unless, as I said, the system allowed for a dodge or save against decapitation). They're all either luck or GM fiat.

And most importantly of all, none of this has anything to do with the fact that he feels that the GM's job should be to defeat the players. Which is only acceptable in some types of games--and there's a very good chance that he feels that games that don't do this are wastes of time. They're slop.

Not that these games are not to his taste, not that he actively hates those types of games; that they are objectively bad.

And as someone who is a professional writer, he should know the difference between those two things and be able to write that difference within the confines of a tweet or forum post. "I feel that" only adds 9 characters, or 11 if tweets count spaces as characters. I wouldn't know.

I don't like the idea of instakilling a PC, even if the rules say so. I find that to be unfun. That is not a type of game I want to play. See? That's easy to write.

I also feel it safe to say that the only reason he wants a disinterested mechanic here to help him defeat the players is because he feels GM fiat is cheating. But if the rules say that he instakills a player, then it's all good.

no, you take them out of context, I read them in context. Just look a few lines up...

No, you feel that reading a few words in a sentence and ignoring the rest of the text is reading them in context. I do not. Therefore, there's really no reason to continue this conversation--it's clear you can't look at the entire picture for some reason when it comes to defending Mearls.

 

[KYRON45]

No, you feel that reading a few words in a sentence and ignoring the rest of the text is reading them in context. I do not. Therefore, there's really no reason to continue this conversation--it's clear you can't look at the entire picture for some reason when it comes to defending Mearls.

Are people defending Mearls or are they trying to explain their point of view regarding his remarks?
Is it that you don't like that people might agree with him?

 

[Faolyn]

Honestly these three points didn't really give me all that much to work with. I'm curious what kind of game he's working on but I'd like to see more details and examples. It seems to be an interesting structure to base a game upon but I can already see some possible shortcomings that it would have to adress.

I'd been following him while he's been creating his Odyssey game, although I'm still a bit behind. It's sort of an OSR-ified 5e, I'd say. At least as of mid-February. Stats are point spread, not random. Mostly D&D races (human, wood elf, dwarf, sylvan ape(!)), and classes (the big four, plus monk), backgrounds give skills and you can pick talents (e.g. feats) as you level up, but your race and class give you fewer traits. There are subclasses, although I think only one has been detailed (Brute fighter). Classes are divided up into Apprentice (level -1), Novice (level 0), and Veteran (levels 1-10). Hit points are a flat number.

You also have Aspects, which are divided into one Drive--your goal--and two Impulses, which should oppose each other in some way. An example is "protect the weak but crush those who oppose me." Then you assign them to various parts of a d20: one is 1-12, the second is 13-18, and the third is 19-20. So if you don't know what to do with your character, roll a d20, see what aspect is rolled, and RP that.

Spells are simplified and have a "beyond the rules" section giving you, well, the other rules for the spell beyond the most obvious one. Dancing lights creates two motes of light; beyond the rules: they can be used as a distraction. Or misty step lets you teleport 15'; beyond the rules: it's a swift spell and thus can be cast more than once per turn.

Edit: pressed enter too soon, apparently. Monsters--or at least orcs, since that's the only one I've seen statted up--are written to be used across multiple tiers of play, so a tier 1 orc does 1d12 damage with an axe while a tier 4 orc has two attacks that do 1d12+1 damage. They also have a Death Spasm, which is sort of a reaction that's taken when they drop to 0 hp. In the case of orcs, they can move and make one attack, then die.

The last playtest packet I've read was on Regions. The area is described, there's a small encounter table which gives the encounter's DC, then an Evolution section, which is a list of things that will/could happen if the region's main threat is destroyed.

All in all, it seems pretty cool. I wasn't getting the impression that it was going to have particularly deadly rules, although perhaps the Apprentice and Novice levels are designed to be a meat grinder thing. I haven't tried making a character in it, though.

 

[billd91]

I also feel it safe to say that the only reason he wants a disinterested mechanic here to help him defeat the players is because he feels GM fiat is cheating. But if the rules say that he instakills a player, then it's all good.

I think that is an extremely uncharitable interpretation of what Mearls said. I mean, this really is into the "When did you stop beating your wife" kind of territory in which it looks like there's no way for him to get an even break from you. Really, what's the source of your utter mad-on against Mearls regarding this set of tweets?

 

[Faolyn]

Same: I'm there to present challenges and obstacles to overcome. Setting DCs for checks. Without any opposition, there's no conflict and it's hardly a game anymore.

Which is why I'm not terribly interested in some of those more 'laid back' RPGs about starting a fantasy café, or a game about having picnics. Nothing wrong with that, but there's a reason why even the most basic children's shows and books have SOME kind of conflict ("I want all of the cookies but Daniel Tiger wants me to share!").

Maybe that's what Mearls meant? That the DM is the one who creates conflict for the PCs to bounce off of.

EDIT for clarity: I'm not there to defeat the players, but to present challenges so that they can use their cool abilities and powers on something active.

I've found those games do have conflict. The conflict is usually just not one of life and death. It's more low key and personal. And a lot of them are designed for one-shots, or are solo or two-player RPGs. They're not meant for a group to play as a long-term campaign.

Plus, a lot of them have the conflict as something that's actually built into the game. For instance, Belonging Outside Belonging games are very laid back, but most of them have the game's core about you being part of a minority who is actively discriminated against. Like, I have one called Cellphone Grimoire (haven't played it, but I've read it and reviewed it for my friends) where you're a witch in the big city and you want to help people and your community and do witchy things, which is sweet and adorable, but a lot of people hate witches and try to make draconian laws against you.

Heck, I got a game in an Itch charity bundle that was designed for little children to play. You play as kids lost in the woods! You all get to build a base camp! No adults! And you're stuck in the woods for weeks or months on end. With minimal supplies, and you have to forage for all your own food. And the threat of animal attacks and bad weather (there were tables). Even though death wasn't really allowed, IIRC, injury was. The art was all bright and shiny and fun, and the premise was something that is fun for kids (since what kids haven't imagined living in the woods with no parents are around at least once), the only thing that would stop it from becoming Lord of the Flies is, well, the GM being firm with the players. I can't remember the name of the game, because I mostly felt that if I were going to play a game like that, I'd pick a better system.

So I don't know what these Fantasy Cafe game or Fantasy Picnic games are--that is, if you're actually referring to real games or if you just made up examples--but next time you come across one, read it more closely. I can think of lots of potential conflict with both concepts.