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 is not about whether they broke even. I was looking at growth or decline, as that is what their stewardship is responsible for, and that is not something I consider a success story.

If Disney bought D&D and halved sales over 5 years, would you consider that a success?
That’s a very interesting interpretation. Please tell me more.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The fundamental problem is that Hasbro is a public company.

Old school Keynesian economics would dictate that people/entities generally make decisions that are in their long-term self interest. This however did not really take into account the pressures of entering the capital markets. How many times have you heard that say, Amazon's stock decreased in value even though they posted X Billion Dollars in profit? But they only grew 1.2 %, time to take a bath.

It used to be that, you could sacrifice increased short term gain for a healthier, sustainable business that would be better for business long term. Now, that's no longer possible. You need to grow, infinitely, forever to make the revolving door of people/funds who own your stock happy. Thus, because every possible efficiency and business process optimization has been, more or less, already made they squeeze their consumer, which is not a good long term strategy but works well enough in the short term for their shareholders and, not inconsequentially, the C-suite guys who derive alot of their compensation from stock and are only going to be there a few years, interests. It's why every app you love gets inevitably enshittified.

So really, it's in nobodies interest (at least anyone making the decisions) to really strive for a model where you don't pressure the customer with subscriptions, micro transactions, needless products that cause them to tire of your product as a whole and just leave etc. I wanta da money now, I don't care about da money 5 years for now. I needa da money now.
And nevertheless publically owned companies make longterm investments all the time. Many of the reasons Apple, Amazon, Tesla etc are where they are now is because the took out huge investments of their own. Every time Amazon spends megabucks to buy a company it’s a short term pain for what they hope is a long term gain.

In my experience shareholders need return on investment more than infinite growth. If you get a cash injection from selling shares you expect that money to be used to grow the business to drive increased profit. If you don’t plan on growing the business then you probably won’t get the investment. That might be new product lines, logistics, technology to make you more efficient etc. improving profit doesn’t necessarily come at the cost of the customer or the employees.

This idea that companies will drive profit to the point of detriment is usually a fallacy. They might get things wrong or set expectations too high but it’s unusual that companies intentionally set out to fudge things up.

Most business don’t use micro transactions, subscriptions or needless products. Most just sell a product for what they think it’s value is, and try and get a bit better at that as time goes on.
 


If D&D were still owned by a privately owned company, I think we can safely speculate that the pressure to revoke the OGL, claw back more things from system identity, squash potential competition etc wouldn't be as great.

I don't think anybody is arguing that it's a 100% certainty, but yeah, shareholder demands/pressures drive alot of decision making at any public company, especially ones as big as Hasbro.

If it were still owned by TSR there wouldn't have been any OGL. There's a reason one nickname for them was They Sue Regularly and another was T$R.
 


This idea that companies will drive profit to the point of detriment is usually a fallacy. They might get things wrong or set expectations too high but it’s unusual that companies intentionally set out to fudge things up.
coughs in 2008 collaterized debt obligations

Joking aside, to your broader point, there is nuance there. I'm not saying there are no long term-investments made by anybody in late-stage capitalism or whatever. It's just that in the quest for endless growth demanded by shareholders we've sort of reached what can be achieved in alot of areas without alienating the consumer with practices they do not care for.

I think if you ask alot of people, that you know personally in life, they feel something similar I imagine you'd find it's a pretty widely held sentiment. Or not. Who knows, man, I've fully embraced our inevitable corporate overlord. I've made peace with the fact that within 20 years I'll be living in a hive city, toiling in a manufactorum and being paid in corpse-starch rations and Meta Bux.
 

And nevertheless publically owned companies make longterm investments all the time. Many of the reasons Apple, Amazon, Tesla etc are where they are now is because the took out huge investments of their own. Every time Amazon spends megabucks to buy a company it’s a short term pain for what they hope is a long term gain.

In my experience shareholders need return on investment more than infinite growth. If you get a cash injection from selling shares you expect that money to be used to grow the business to drive increased profit. If you don’t plan on growing the business then you probably won’t get the investment. That might be new product lines, logistics, technology to make you more efficient etc. improving profit doesn’t necessarily come at the cost of the customer or the employees.

This idea that companies will drive profit to the point of detriment is usually a fallacy. They might get things wrong or set expectations too high but it’s unusual that companies intentionally set out to fudge things up.

Most business don’t use micro transactions, subscriptions or needless products. Most just sell a product for what they think it’s value is, and try and get a bit better at that as time goes on.

And there’s nothing inherent about publically traded companies vs sole proprietorship vs venture capitalist controlled companies that makes publically traded companies more likely to do anything than the others (except possibly their current market share and limited competition), something that applies just as easily to any company regardless of ownership structure with large market share and limited competition.
 

And nevertheless publically owned companies make longterm investments all the time. Many of the reasons Apple, Amazon, Tesla etc are where they are now is because the took out huge investments of their own. Every time Amazon spends megabucks to buy a company it’s a short term pain for what they hope is a long term gain.

In my experience shareholders need return on investment more than infinite growth. If you get a cash injection from selling shares you expect that money to be used to grow the business to drive increased profit. If you don’t plan on growing the business then you probably won’t get the investment. That might be new product lines, logistics, technology to make you more efficient etc. improving profit doesn’t necessarily come at the cost of the customer or the employees.

This idea that companies will drive profit to the point of detriment is usually a fallacy. They might get things wrong or set expectations too high but it’s unusual that companies intentionally set out to fudge things up.

Most business don’t use micro transactions, subscriptions or needless products. Most just sell a product for what they think it’s value is, and try and get a bit better at that as time goes on.
Assuming you're right, why is Hasbro/WotC different then?
 


So how can you make your claim? Even just on logic?

You asked for specific examples from hasbro. Ones I cannot specifically provide. I can point to tons of resources talking about long term strategic planning, but those don’t directly answer your hyper specific question.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top