WotC Mike Mearls: "D&D Is Uncool Again"

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.

 

[Imaro]

I think he could poop more if he was so inclined, and I see no problem with him expressing his feelings on the matter, and no reason why his content production should be judged on his expressed opinions. If you don't like what he makes, that's one thing. Why does it matter that he doesn't like what you like unless it affects his content in a way that matters to you?

Why do you feel the need to defend him? He has opinions he posted publicly and i have opinions on them... what's your benefit in white knighting him?

 

[Mercurius]

I read it completely differently. That the only way to play the game the "right" way is to have the risk of significant loss or character death as a constant risk. That those darn young'uns are playing it wrong because they don't want that. I don't know how else you can interpret removing the threat of death or significant loss makes the game a "time-wasting slop". Saying he's "feeling salty" does not change or excuse what he says.

I think "constant risk" is a bit much. He didn't say that, at least in the tweets I quoted. He used the phrase "sense of risk." Whether you agree or not that a sense of risk is a crucial factor in an RPG, at the very least it is a valid perspective.

As for your feeling that he's expressing that there is a right and wrong way to play, this is a common morass we find ourselves in when discussing game philosophy online. There's a common tendency in online discourse to interpret any statement of opinion as some kind of threat or implied "You're doing it wrong." But people do it all the time here and other places, and part of that is just the nature of the beast (the medium of online, text-based discourse). I get that One True Wayism is annoying, but I think a lot of times it is just the nature of the beast of online discourse, which reduces what would be a more nuanced and multi-dimensional conversation in meatspace to one that is more two-dimensional in written text.

 

[AlViking]

I’m happy to just say he’s speaking for himself and i don’t require him to speak for the entire hobby and so now i have to call him wrong wrong wrong for just saying his thoughts.

the “consequences” discussion makes me see this from a different perspective. If a new shadowdark character can be rolled in microseconds in the character builder, doesn’t that DIMINISH the stakes of character death considerably compared to a 5e build that took you hours to build and write a novella of a backstory?

Who’s got more to lose in a fight? Random-generated goblin with a random-table name? Or Bralwith the sage dragonborn Wild-magic sorcerer who dipped two levels into Ranger and is 7th of a named family line to be cursed with wild magic?

Oops the goblin died but the character has already been replaced by another rando. No harm no foul.

It’s an interesting question.

Perhaps the real stakes all along has been… commitment of our time?

Growing up I loved books from Tolkien, Lieber, Burroughs and on. When I play a character it's not just a random avatar, game token or a piece of paper. It doesn't matter how long to generate the character or whether I have a dozen other characters I could play. I'm playing Grognard the Barbarian and I've invested thought into who they are, what they think and why. That investment grows over time. So their death is the death of a fictional person that I've grown to care for. Obviously that's not the case for everyone, we all want different things out of the game.

 

[Mercurius]

I’m happy to just say he’s speaking for himself and i don’t require him to speak for the entire hobby and so now i have to call him wrong wrong wrong for just saying his thoughts.

the “consequences” discussion makes me see this from a different perspective. If a new shadowdark character can be rolled in microseconds in the character builder, doesn’t that DIMINISH the stakes of character death considerably compared to a 5e build that took you hours to build and write a novella of a backstory?

Who’s got more to lose in a fight? Random-generated goblin with a random-table name? Or Bralwith the sage dragonborn Wild-magic sorcerer who dipped two levels into Ranger and is 7th of a named family line to be cursed with wild magic?

Oops the goblin died but the character has already been replaced by another rando. No harm no foul.

It’s an interesting question.

Perhaps the real stakes all along has been… commitment of our time?

I hear what you're saying, but think that character creation time is just one factor. And if "commitment of our time" is what it boils down to, I think the time you spend playing a character is added to creation time - so investment is greatly dependent upon how much time, in total, you've put into that character, whether the time was spent creating or playing.

To put it another way, one might be more invested in a Shadowdark character they've played for 100 hours, than a D&D character they've played for 10 hours, even if the creation took up a lot longer for the latter character.

And of course every player is different, in terms of how much they identify and "bond with" a character. Some play characters as pieces on a chessboard; some really get into them, like a method actor.

And many other factors...the point being, I don't think it is reducible to character creation time - that's a factor, but so is time spent playing a character, and player's overall approach to roleplaying.

 

[TiQuinn]

Why? What do his opinions have to do with the quality of his work? It really makes no sense to me at all.

I don't want to financially support bigots and general creeps, if I can help it.

 

[AlViking]

I think "constant risk" is a bit much. He didn't say that, at least in the tweets I quoted. He used the phrase "sense of risk." Whether you agree or not that a sense of risk is a crucial factor in an RPG, at the very least it is a valid perspective.

As for your feeling that he's expressing that there is a right and wrong way to play, this is a common morass we find ourselves in when discussing game philosophy online. There's a common tendency in online discourse to interpret any statement of opinion as some kind of threat or implied "You're doing it wrong." But people do it all the time here and other places, and part of that is just the nature of the beast (the medium of online, text-based discourse). I get that One True Wayism is annoying, but I think a lot of times it is just the nature of the beast of online discourse, which reduces what would be a more nuanced and multi-dimensional conversation in meatspace to one that is more two-dimensional in written text.

He makes it quite clear that he's complaining about younger gamers who apparently just don't know what's good for them. Say "I don't get why younger people enjoy games without significant risk" and I have no issue with it. He's also not just some random poster, he posts to sell his product and his brand as a designer. If you're in that position you should be putting some thought into how you're expressing yourself. The fact that he posted this to X and not Bluesky says to me that he knew he was denigrating other styles of play.

 

[Metroido]

It matters because if it's bought through D&D Beyond, it isn't really bought. Anything happens to D&D Beyond, it's ... gone. If you have it as a PDF you don't care about WotC after the sale, but nor do you with a book but in this format, if they shut down you're out of luck. If I remember correctly, you can't access them through the website if you're not connected to the Internet. They do have an app, but I haven't investigated if that means you need to use a phone or if there's a dedicated windows app.

So without a book (or, hint hint, a PDF) the game can just vanish.

Physical books aren't permanent either. They can be damaged by fire or water. I lost half my comic book collection due to my basement flooding, so I know first hand how fragile books can be. I'd say that PDFs are actually more durable than a physical book and probably the most permanent format we currently have, due to how easily they can be backed up. Nothing is permanent, though, so hypotheticals about how long D&D Beyond will be around aren't really relevant.

 

[SteveC]

I've lost several books over the years just due to somehow misplacing them and there are plenty of other hazards to physical books. I would have to repurchase books if I wanted to play some versions of the game. Nothing is permanent and I don't personally see a significantly higher risk to purchasing things on DndBeyond.

If I lose a book, that affects me, but it has zero impact on you. Similarly, if a huge print run is made for a book, I can likely find a copy of that book to add to my stores again. I see early edition D&D in used bookstores all the time. But if Beyond goes down, it affects everyone.

While nothing is truly permanent, my books are just that: mine. They aren't something that I've licensed from WotC.

Mind you, I don't have anything against online purchases. I have the PHB through Foundry so I'm on that treadmill to a certain extent myself. But if I care about something, it sits in my library and book thieves don't affect your books.

 

[TiQuinn]

Honest question: What do you mean by "tone deaf?" Maybe I mistake your usage, but this implies that he's oblivious to how his tone would effect a majority and/or intended audience, like previewing a Star Wars screening by saying "Trek is better!" It also implies that his tone should cater to a specific group, and presumably one that you feel aligned with (i.e. "tone deaf" = "not speaking in a tone that I like, or resonates with my view").

Or to put it another way, what tone (do you think) he should be employing? What if his tone is just an expression of how he feels and what he thinks about a subject? Should he employ a tone that is inauthentic?

Honest answer: He either didn't realize that his language could be seized upon by members of the TTRPG community who seek to exclude others for their own selfish purposes, or he absolutely knew that was who was going to see that post, and was careful to post it on Twitter which has a larger number of those people versus Bluesky, where he also posts but decided not to post there.

Hey, I'm not going to dance around this. I'm about as liberal as it gets, and I think bigotry and people who like to use dogwhistles that call out to bigots suck. And that's about all I can say because anything further gets even more political from here on out, but hopefully I've made myself clear.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why do you feel the need to defend him? He has opinions he posted publicly and i have opinions on them... what's your benefit in white knighting him?

Because you both get to do both.

I know for me, sometimes when I see something or someone getting crapped on way more than I think it deserves, I'm more than happy to defend it. Because one of the negatives of social media is the pile-on effect-- once it seems like "the group" has decided it's socially okay to kick someone... a whole bunch of other people show up to join in-- and tend to become more and more vitriolic about it because they need their participation to "feel important" compared to everyone else thus far.

So it's good to have the opposing side show up occasionally just to remind folks they might be going a little over-the-top.