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


log in or register to remove this ad

This is not a quote, it is a paraphrased editorial of parts of what he wrote.

Where did I say you didn't understand what he said?
I simply pointed out an alternate take on what you gleaned from his posts. I don't know how either of us could be right or wrong about this without Mearls telling us.


Good grief. Yes, I was writing from memory. The exact quote from the posts on X: "Whether it's a dead character or a failure in whatever context the session presents, the bigger the threat, the more meaning play has to us emotionally and spiritually. Removing it from the game turns it into time-wasting slop."

I disagree with pretty much all of that. Play can have meaning from several different aspects of play, overcoming obstacles that preset a threat (and the bigger the better) is only one part of why I play games and frequently not the most important or rewarding one. But the kicker is saying that if your game doesn't include that it's time-wasting slop.

Then he responded on this thread here WotC - Mike Mearls: "D&D Is Uncool Again". I'm not going to repeat everything but his words were "If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players".

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.

I am allowed to disagree with what he clearly states. Just like you are allowed to agree.
 

Good grief. Yes, I was writing from memory. The exact quote from the posts on X: "Whether it's a dead character or a failure in whatever context the session presents, the bigger the threat, the more meaning play has to us emotionally and spiritually. Removing it from the game turns it into time-wasting slop."

I disagree with pretty much all of that. Play can have meaning from several different aspects of play, overcoming obstacles that preset a threat (and the bigger the better) is only one part of why I play games and frequently not the most important or rewarding one. But the kicker is saying that if your game doesn't include that it's time-wasting slop.

Then he responded on this thread here WotC - Mike Mearls: "D&D Is Uncool Again". I'm not going to repeat everything but his words were "If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players".

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.

I am allowed to disagree with what he clearly states. Just like you are allowed to agree.
That is paraphrased editorial, very different from a quote as you claimed you were doing in multiple posts.
 

Good grief. Yes, I was writing from memory. The exact quote from the posts on X: "Whether it's a dead character or a failure in whatever context the session presents, the bigger the threat, the more meaning play has to us emotionally and spiritually. Removing it from the game turns it into time-wasting slop."

I disagree with pretty much all of that. Play can have meaning from several different aspects of play, overcoming obstacles that preset a threat (and the bigger the better) is only one part of why I play games and frequently not the most important or rewarding one. But the kicker is saying that if your game doesn't include that it's time-wasting slop.

Then he responded on this thread here WotC - Mike Mearls: "D&D Is Uncool Again". I'm not going to repeat everything but his words were "If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players".

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.

I am allowed to disagree with what he clearly states. Just like you are allowed to agree.

Keep in mind this is how people get engagement with the algorithms. I usually make posts that are very mild on twitter, but I also get almost no traction. I notice that posters who with stark styles of posting, get the traction (case in point: we are discussing this one post here for several pages). I think in the grand scheme of twitter gaming posts, 'time-wasting slop' probably should be taken with a grain of salt.

Personally I wouldn't say that a lack of risk or death or failure in the game makes it time wasting slop. I would say for me the game loses something when that isn't present and it feels like there has been an evolution away from risk that is worth examining. But a post saying that is never going to generate discussion on social media so I get why he spiced it up
 


Keep in mind this is how people get engagement with the algorithms. I usually make posts that are very mild on twitter, but I also get almost no traction. I notice that posters who with stark styles of posting, get the traction (case in point: we are discussing this one post here for several pages). I think in the grand scheme of twitter gaming posts, 'time-wasting slop' probably should be taken with a grain of salt.

Personally I wouldn't say that a lack of risk or death or failure in the game makes it time wasting slop. I would say for me the game loses something when that isn't present and it feels like there has been an evolution away from risk that is worth examining. But a post saying that is never going to generate discussion on social media so I get why he spiced it up

Which is also why we get videos with big red letters "THEY DID IT AGAIN!!!" with an image of someone face-palming and flames in the background. I don't agree with those either.
 





Remove ads

Remove ads

Top