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

Would this potentially not be due to the limited tie in products, or do you believe that BG3 players are simply of a different demographic from 5e players all together?
There is overlap, but honestly - if you become a computer gamer, it will forever dominate your destiny...

...sorry, got sidetracked. :)

Lots of computer gamers also play D&D, but those ones don't translate to extra sales of D&D, since they're already buying the game!

So, you have to hit people who play BG3 and haven't thought "I should try the TTRPG". Which is probably not that big a number since D&D has been so in the popular awareness for a decade now.
 


I notice that @mearls refers to "5.5".

Since he is one of the main people putting together the popular 5.0 edition, the nomenclature feels definitive.

I take it to mean, from Mearls perspective, the new books are still recognizably 5e, but have developed enough to feel nonidentical.


I was happily referring to the anniversary "2024 edition". But now the confusion about referring to the Monster Manual as either the 2024 MM or the 2025 MM, disrupts the use of the term "2024" as an edition name.


I guess, I will now refer to the 5.5 edition after all. In contrast to the 5.0 edition. And refer to 5e when speaking about the fifth edition generally. (I do this for 3e as well.)

Also now, I will use the year, such as "2025 MM", to specify the year the individual product came out. It might be that future updates of products will appear in future years.
 

Give it a bit and I bet it comes full circle again. Nothing stays on top forever. The next newest thing will be soon replaced by the next newest thing, a never ending loop. Somehow D&D always survives and comes back on top for a bit.
 


Oh, the value of the books was never questioned! Once we agreed to update to the new rules, we didn't want to go halfway, and we each bought a PHB so we wouldn't have to fight over one book. We knew there would be a lot of rule referencing, more so even than if it was a new system altogether because we anticipated having to update things we already knew. We're all at an age where the price of a book is negligible on our yearly income. The general consensus is indeed that (most of) these rule updates are superior to the old ones, which triggered the change.

But I feel we should have been excited about it. We should have done so in anticipation. It should have been Christmas in July (or whenever it happened...) but it wasn't. The buzz wasn't there. Thus the statement that despite being good consumers for D&D, we were unexcited about it.
Because the 5.5 core rulebooks are more clearly "core", they come across as somewhat "solid" and "useful", but generic.

I expect the creative energies are now happening in the settings.

Because of the nature of popular kitchen-sink settings, like Eberron and Forgotten Realms, it is easy to repurpose them to tell new stories. On the one hand, exploring how the modern core sensibilities affect the traditional lore will unleash creativity. On the other hand, brand new stories can happen that are on the pulse of what is happening and "cool" among D&D players specifically and pop culture sensibilities generally.
 

You could say the same about almost all reviews. They almost never take place after someone has ran the campaign. While youtube reviews have a financial incentive to be extreme/original/negative.

The days of Endzeitgeist reviews have gone I’m afraid.

You can still find decent list videos that map fairly close to online opinions
 

I notice that @mearls refers to "5.5".

Since he is one of the main people putting together the popular 5.0 edition, the nomenclature feels definitive.

I take it to mean, from Mearls perspective, the new books are still recognizably 5e, but have developed enough to feel nonidentical.


I was happily referring to the anniversary "2024 edition". But now the confusion about referring to the Monster Manual as either the 2024 MM or the 2025 MM, disrupts the use of the term "2024" as an edition name.


I guess, I will now refer to the 5.5 edition after all. In contrast to the 5.0 edition. And refer to 5e when speaking about the fifth edition generally. (I do this for 3e as well.)

Also now, I will use the year, such as "2025 MM", to specify the year the individual product came out. It might be that future updates of products will appear in future years.
5.5 forever for me.
 

No fad stays on top forever, and I think it is fair to say that the current popularity of D&D is a fad. I don't think that means that D&D is going away anytime soon, but I also don't think that is it going to maintain any sort of cultural prominence. Which, as far as I am concerned, is a good thing. One of the problems with "cultural prominence" is scrutiny, and with scrutiny you get "tanar'ri."
I am equally happy the fad is ending.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Trending content

Remove ads

Top