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. 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.
So then having the DM's actual goal be to defeat and foil the players... probably isn't a good thing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
It's not that different from Shadowdark's light going out after an hour, just more flexible. Seems to work there, and if you do not like it, either one is easily ignored (or the timespan increased).

Also, it sounds like he is considering giving bonuses to the players, not just throwing obstacles their way in the mechanic, even though he has not tested that yet.
 


So then having the DM's actual goal be to defeat and foil the players... probably isn't a good thing.
The enemy NPC’s goal is to defeat and foil the PCs. The DM plays the NPC.

The DM needs to make sure that the enemies do a good job to make the game fun for the players.

Hence, the DM, by playing the NPC correctly, will try to defeat and foil the PCs.

This is not adversarial unless the DM is bending the rules in favor of the NPC.

It seems straightforward.
 


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?
How exactly does one become aware that the DM is adversarial? And until we know, should we not presume that they aren't?
 

The enemy NPC’s goal is to defeat and foil the PCs. The DM plays the NPC.

The DM needs to make sure that the enemies do a good job to make the game fun for the players.

Hence, the DM, by playing the NPC correctly, will try to defeat and foil the PCs.

This is not adversarial unless the DM is bending the rules in favor of the NPC.

It seems straightforward.
This that you posted is straightforward but it's not what Mearls posted or what was being discussed...
 



It's not that different from Shadowdark's light going out after an hour, just more flexible. Seems to work there, and if you do not like it, either one is easily ignored (or the timespan increased).

Also, it sounds like he is considering giving bonuses to the players, not just throwing obstacles their way in the mechanic, even though he has not tested that yet.
True. I commented on the actual post as well.

Basically, constant tension isn't great, as players will start to (naturally) rebel against it, which generally (IME) means making jokes or tuning out. In the Mythic solo RPG engine, the Chaos Factor, which is largely responsible for introducing randomness and increasing danger, goes up and down depending on the player's rolls. The player rolls well, the CF goes down. They roll poorly, it goes up. Thus, I made the suggestion that if the players are doing well, perhaps that means the number of tension dice go down. It shows that they're gaining some control. This doesn't mean that if the players are doing well there's no chance for anything bad to happen, but it does somewhat reduce the danger levels.

Of course, what "rolls well" means will be up to Mearls, assuming he even likes the idea in the first place. Mythic generally means "successful rolls," but Mearls (or anyone who likes the idea) could only have rolls that are above a certain number or that succeed by a certain amount.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top