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

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).
Disinterested mechanics don't take a side. If the DM is using them to take a side, he is changing them in some manner and they are no longer disinterested. You cannot use them as is and be adversarial.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mikes recent post on patreon and his “dialing” up the tensions seems fun and something to try. It’s also on the free part so I’d recommend looking at it and seeing what you think.
 

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.
This doesn’t make sense to me. Of course the DM should be a fair arbiter of the game and its mechanics. But that does not conflict with also trying to RP the antagonists as antagonists who are trying to foil the party.

I don’t understand the distinction that you are making. I don’t think anyone is advocating for the DM to cheat.
 

Disinterested mechanics don't take a side. If the DM is using them to take a side, he is changing them in some manner and they are no longer disinterested. You cannot use them as is and be adversarial.
But mechanics can't cover every corner case...within those gaps, thats where an adversarial DM can and will gain an upperhand.

Edit: And all this is assuming the mechanics are perfectly neutral with no exploits.
 

This doesn’t make sense to me. Of course the DM should be a fair arbiter of the game and its mechanics. But that does not conflict with also trying to RP the antagonists as antagonists who are trying to foil the party.

I don’t understand the distinction that you are making. I don’t think anyone is advocating for the DM to cheat.
The distinction is the character you are portraying being roleplayed as adversarial vs. The DM actually being adversarial (Mearls stated the goal of the DM)...there's an enormous distinction there.
 
Last edited:

But mechanics can't cover every corner case...within those gaps, thats where an adversarial DM can and will gain an upperhand.

Edit: And all this is assuming the mechanics are perfectly neutral with no exploits.
No. An adversarial DM isn't going to wait for corner cases. They are jerks who are going to be that way all over the place, which is why people shouldn't play with one and should leave a game as soon as it is apparent your DM is adversarial.
 

Mikes recent post on patreon and his “dialing” up the tensions seems fun and something to try. It’s also on the free part so I’d recommend looking at it and seeing what you think.
It looks like it could be fun but is basically just designed for a constant increase in tension. And that way leads to burn-out very quickly, IME.
 

You left off

4) the game uses disinterested mechanics to resolve conflicts.
I didn't leave it off, there was no 4) the 'disinterested mechanics' is further up in the quote

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.
We have encounter building rules, I would consider this to be part of the disinterested mechanics. Curious whether Mike means more than that and how he implements it
 
Last edited:

But mechanics can't cover every corner case...within those gaps, thats where an adversarial DM can and will gain an upperhand.

Edit: And all this is assuming the mechanics are perfectly neutral with no exploits.
You really need watch out for those sneaky DMs, right? No need for presumption of good faith.
 

You really need watch out for those sneaky DMs, right? No need for presumption of good faith.
Huh? What are you even talking about? We are specifically talking about adversarial DM's whose goal is to defeat and foil the players... given those parameters where does a presumption of good faith enter the equation? That they won't actually pursue their goal? If not well then we are talking about different type of DM, right?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top