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

Now we come to the nitty gritty. Is the GMs goal to defeat or foil the players? Yes. According to what he writes the GM should oppose the players. The interesting thing about this is that it actually goes against the usual OSR spiel about the GM being a neutral arbiter or referee. This is, in other words, doesn't just go against the modern GM who's a "fan of the PCs" and "makes sure everyone is having fun" but also the OSR GM who "makes rulings" and "keeps an organized timetable".

This GM wants to stop the things the players aspire to.
No. He's saying the DMs job is to challenge the players goals, which by necessity included the possibility of PC death or failure to achieve those goals. In that regard, normal DMing IS standing in opposition to player/PC goals. Placing challenges to be overcome or failed is a large part of the job of DM.

What he did not do is encourage or say adversarial DMing was how to go about it. Adversarial DMing is taking it personally and abusing your authority as DM to cause failure. Raising the DC arbitrarily in order to cause a PC to fall instead of succeed. Hitting the group with two more dragons in order to cause a death or TPK, because they beat your dragon encounter too easily.

Those sorts of adversarial methods are things he very explicitly spoke against in the same paragraph by saying the best way to do it is with disinterested mechanics, which stand in direct opposition to being an adversarial DM.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



I've definitely noticed how often you've fallen back to the defense that any and all dissenters are liars cherry-picking quotes, or just don't understand how Mearls meant "defeat and foil" to mean something else completely different.
Read my last few posts and then don't ignore the context of what Mearls said. Do that and you will understand.
 

Pick a game for that which meets Mearls' criteria

I'd say 5e does, but if you don't think so pick an OSR game or Shadowdark or something... presumably his new game meets these criteria and that falls somewhere in this range
You left off

4) the game uses disinterested mechanics to resolve conflicts.

I think 5e fails on the last one. Too many of the mechanics involve DM decision making. DCs, number of creatures, difficulty of creatures, presence, number and difficulty of traps, etc.
 

You left off

4) the game uses disinterested mechanics to resolve conflicts.

I think 5e fails on the last one. Too many of the mechanics involve DM decision making. DCs, number of creatures, difficulty of creatures, presence, number and difficulty of traps, etc.
Not sure if that doesn’t apply to every edition honestly. Every edition has warts that fit in this same general conversation, and that’s from my playing since 1986 and played 1,2,3, and 5. Even pathfinder 1 has deficiencies that made us quite enjoying the system after playing for 6ish years.
 

Not sure if that doesn’t apply to every edition honestly. Every edition has warts that fit in this same general conversation, and that’s from my playing since 1986 and played 1,2,3, and 5. Even pathfinder 1 has deficiencies that made us quite enjoying the system after playing for 6ish years.
Yes, it would apply to every edition of D&D to date. @mamba asked what game would work, though, which means non-D&D is on the table. I think there are probably some non-D&D games that would meet the criteria.
 

Foiling or defeating the players/PCs does not equate to adversarial DMing. A huge part of the DM's job is to set up challenges for the players/PCs and those stand in opposition to player/PC goals. What Mearls described wasn't adversarial, it was simply being a DM.
I think setting up challenges and running a combat as neutral referee is different from setting up challenges and running combat as a DM actively trying to foil and defeat players... I think it's why OSR philosophy heavily favors the referee approach.

Adversarial DMing involves the DM taking things personally and abusing authority. If the players say something like, "Our tactics made that dragon fight easy," the adversarial DM would take offense at that and have the dragons two older brothers show up to exact revenge. Or if the adversarial DM didn't like something one of the players did, he might just raise a DC so that player's PC fails a climb check and falls for 10d6 damage.

People here are taking what Mearls said out of context and using that to disparage him. That ain't cool.
No adversarial DM involves the DM trying to actively defeat the PC's as opposed to being a neutral arbiter of the game and its mechanics. It has nothing to do with taking it personally and their are games that have constraints built into their mechanics to allow a DM to be adversarial without it ruining game play.
 

I think setting up challenges and running a combat as neutral referee is different from setting up challenges and running combat as a DM actively trying to foil and defeat players... I think it's why OSR philosophy heavily favors the referee approach.


No adversarial DM involves the DM trying to actively defeat the PC's as opposed to being a neutral arbiter of the game and its mechanics. It has nothing to do with taking it personally and their are games that have constraints built into their mechanics to allow a DM to be adversarial without it ruining game play.
All of that is negated by disinterested mechanics, which Mike said was the best way to run what he was suggesting. The DM cannot be adversarial with disinterested mechanics, so either Mike was lying when he said that, or he isn't arguing for adversarial DMing. Which do you think it is?
 

All of that is negated by disinterested mechanics, which Mike said was the best way to run what he was suggesting. The DM cannot be adversarial with disinterested mechanics, so either Mike was lying when he said that, or he isn't arguing for adversarial DMing. Which do you think it is?
No disinterested mechanics aren't the same as active constraints which, along with disinterested mechanics are what you need for adversarial DM'ing to be viable. See there are things that will always be left out of thee rules since no ruleset can cover 100% of every case... however principles can enact constraints that guide those uncovered cases towards rulings that don't overly favor the DM or player... thus the disinterested mechanics can then be enacted upon them to determine success or failure (which is what Mearls actuallly addresses concerning disinterested mechanics).
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top