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

The biggest trouble it has is just the broader business climate/thinking of the modern era where execs can't handle "not growing" at all.

It seems that so much of the thinking leads companies to take huge risks rather than having a stable business.
The difficulty is, the individuals and organizations that have this money would move it to somewhere else that is "growing" massively.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

THe primary issue here is that it's virtually impossible to get the growth numbers from 2024 D&D that 2014 D&D had. Doubling D&D in 2014 meant you managed to sell, what, a few thousand books? A few tens of thousands? How much would you have to sell today to double the D&D market? Tens of millions?

Of course the growth curve has leveled out. That's just math. But, of course, there will be those who have a vested interest in interpreting things in the most negative way possible. D&D is "uncool" because it's not growing as fast as it was in 2014-2017. Welcome to the wonderful world of an actual mature product that doesn't see double digit growth year on year. That's the difference between a boom/bust product, which is what D&D was for 40 years, and an actual, mature, evergreen product that sees fairly flat or very modest growth for a very long time.

Sure, it would be fantastic if we would continue to see double digit growth year on year. I'd love that and I'm sure WotC and Hasbro would be freaking over the moon if that were true. But, it's unrealistic. Since there's no actual evidence of any sort of shrinking, I'm wondering what the purpose is of claiming that D&D isn't doing well. How is D&D "stumbling" to quote from the original article? Other than some serious tea leaf reading, I'm not seeing any actual evidence that D&D is doing any differently today than it was a year ago.

How is that a bad thing?
 

My impression of 5.5 is, it is solid, the tabletop energy will be in the setting content, and much of the profit will come from branding including videogames, and hopefully movies and tv.
 

The videogame -> TTRPG play thing is weird. When I worked on D&D, we'd see that coordinated marketing helped the video games and products that were tied in, but the opposite didn't seem to be true. Neverwinter would get a nice boost in users, but I think that was mostly TTRPGers picking it up. We didn't see Neverwinter players hopping into tabletop.
That bodes well for the D&D videogame development. D&D fans will know about the upcoming videogames and be customers that the developers can count on, and hopefully it crosses over to the fans of videogames generally.
 


I think it's early to be doomsaying when the new revision's third and final book just came out yesterday at certain retailers. I also think it's not a good look for a designer on the 2014 rules to be suggesting that the people who made the 2024 revision should shut up about it and sweep it under the rug instead.
I think I wasn't very clear on my point. It's not about sweeping the new edition under the rug.

Instead, I think the key is doing new stuff that is just exciting for any D&D fan. Put the focus on the future, and get people to stop looking to the past.

Scenario A: New book comes out, updates the artificer, four subclasses, and includes four new subclasses. In this case, if you already play D&D you're not getting a lot of actual new content. It undercuts the update not being a new edition.

Scenario B: New book comes out, summoner character class, eight new subclasses. In that case, you're focusing on the interesting new stuff that's coming out. It focuses on what's new and interesting. If you haven't updated, it makes you want to update.

I think the playtest of the new FR stuff has some good content that focuses on scenario B. I know that there's some pushback against the Purple Dragon Knight flavor, but a new subclass that gives me a pet dragon is neat, new, and exciting.

Personally, when 3.5 came out I wasn't crazy about getting the new books. However, when Complete Warrior released I was totally sold. The three new character classes, the color art (versus the 3e class books being printed in black and white) pulled me along.

It was interesting to hear that they have products coming out in new formats, because I think that's a great move.
 





Remove ads

Remove ads

Top