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

Yes, it's quite self-explanatory that he thinks that the GM and system should be working to defeat the players.
and that is where you are wrong, not only is not not self-explanatory, it is contradicted by what he wrote. Could he have phrased it better, no doubt. Is your take way off, also no doubt.

I am with you, the DM should not have the goal of defeating the players, because if they did, the characters would not last another five minutes. The DM is there to run an interesting and enjoyable game, and part of that is to provide a challenge.

The post was not Mearls’ take on absolutely everything a DM should be doing, you reading it as such is why you arrive at these ludicrous conclusions

Ah, so here I learn that you're the type who takes only tiny parts of a greater whole and nitpicks about them.
ironic, coming from you. I reconciled the different parts, you focused on a single sentence and ignored or twisted the rest. I agree on one thing, discussing this with you is pointless, goodbye
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?
What I object to is the use of the word should, and to phrases like time-wasting slop or failure of society.

If Mearls is only interested in playing in or running games where there's a high risk of PC death, or where the GM and players are antagonists, then whatever; that's what he prefers to play. The chances of me playing with him are basically nil. The same goes true for all the people in this forum who agree with that mindset. You do whatever you want at your own tables, as long as you're not harming your players by doing it. And the same goes for me.

But when you say that you should run games in a particular way, and you don't follow up by saying "this particular type of game," then there's some problems.
 

This is really getting into "who are you gonna believe; me or your lying eyes?" territory...

Mearls directly said, if the players' goal is success, the GM's should be to defeat and foil them. You can try and twist and untwist that to mean something else completely different until the cows come home, but you're not exactly covering yourself in grace.
 

What I object to is the use of the word should, and to phrases like time-wasting slop or failure of society.

If Mearls is only interested in playing in or running games where there's a high risk of PC death, or where the GM and players are antagonists, then whatever; that's what he prefers to play. The chances of me playing with him are basically nil. The same goes true for all the people in this forum who agree with that mindset. You do whatever you want at your own tables, as long as you're not harming your players by doing it. And the same goes for me.

But when you say that you should run games in a particular way, and you don't follow up by saying "this particular type of game," then there's some problems.
I think you are just annoyed that he doesn't think like you do.
It would seem that the general consensus is that he was describing his views on what the game means to him and you are making it sound like he he attacked you personally.
Good luck finding what you are after.
 


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?
OK, so you haven't actually read what I've written previously because I have (a) repeatedly explain my issues probably a dozen times already and (b) repeatedly said I wasn't talking about his tweets at all; I've only been referring to the post he made here, in this thread, on page 100.
 

I think you are just annoyed that he doesn't think like you do.
You would think incorrectly.

It would seem that the general consensus is that he was describing his views on what the game means to him and you are making it sound like he he attacked you personally.
It would seem that the general consensus is that defeat doesn't actually mean defeat.

Good luck finding what you are after.
I have, thank you! I have a lovely group of six people, we mesh really well on gaming preferences and decisions, and we don't do GM vs. Player.
 

This is really getting into "who are you gonna believe; me or your lying eyes?" territory...

Mearls directly said, if the players' goal is success, the GM's should be to defeat and foil them. You can try and twist and untwist that to mean something else completely different until the cows come home, but you're not exactly covering yourself in grace.
Well, what do you think an appropriate goal for a GM is if the player's goal is success? Are they not supposed to set up challenges capable of foiling that goal?
 

This is really getting into "who are you gonna believe; me or your lying eyes?" territory...

Mearls directly said, if the players' goal is success, the GM's should be to defeat and foil them. You can try and twist and untwist that to mean something else completely different until the cows come home, but you're not exactly covering yourself in grace.
he said a lot more than that too, so I guess I believe my eyes over your lying selective quote
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top